Complaining about your spouse to your friends is a wonderful way to damage your relationship; the unthinking assumption that you should be venting about your spouse is harmful and should be challenged.
Just on this point, I couldn't agree more.
The problem with "venting" is that whomever is listening is almost certainly part of your personal echo chamber. And when dealing with a problem in one's marriage, the last thing people need are mirrors reflecting themselves.
I can't tell you the number of times I've come out of a fight with my wife where, some time later, I realized I was a total ass and needed to apologize for my behaviour.
If I'd "vented" to someone, odds are it would've just hardened my resolve.
In many perfectly healthy, normal marriages, there's a disparity (sometimes significant) in sexual interest/appetite between the spouses that has absolutely nothing to do with their love for each other and everything to do with basic biological, sociological, and psychological differences.
In such a marriage, sexual intimacy actually requires focused effort to maintain. Not "work". That makes it sound transactional in nature. But effort. Like, you have to prioritize it.
To suggest that marriages in which this is necessary are somehow broken is simply unfair. Every marriage is unique and beyond basic expectations of love and decency, it's unreasonable to use ones own experiences as the template by which to judge other people's relationships.
I was molested and raped as a child. I got married at age 19 to another 19 year old with issues as serious as mine, though different. I did a lot of therapy. We did couples counseling. I also had a higher sex drive than him and was unfaithful, which he knew and did not throw in my face.
Sorry if my remarks bother you, but your assumptions are completely out of line. My marriage was neither easy nor a case of good fortune.
So how about if you try to abide by HN guidelines and leave out the condescension, etc.
"You might find this astonishing, but: other marriages are not like yours" does seem pretty condescending. If you're going to comment here, please be more civil than that.
That said, I'm curious to hear what kinds of things you're referring to. Do you have some fictional examples?
My wife and I each have our own best friends, but in my own marriage (14 years... since we all have to publish our credentials ;), if there's something I can't tell me wife, it's something I wouldn't tell anyone, best friends included.
The only obvious exception is if it's something about the marriage itself, but in that case, I'd speak to a friend first only if I needed to work out my own thoughts and emotions before I then talked to my wife. So even in that case, it's more a matter of timing than keeping certain things from her entirely.
I think the word "goal" is too strong, here, but it is a valid point.
People change, and in a good marriage, the spouses should absolutely push each other to change in ways that are healthy and positive.
It's simply ridiculous to assume that whomever you're marrying, right now, is the person they will be for the rest of their lives, or that you shouldn't try to influence those changes.
In fact, that goes beyond just marriages... I would hope that, in all of my relationships, be it as friend, brother, husband, or son, I am a positive influence on my loved ones, and that those people are a positive influence on me.
I'm not sure where I came across this concept, but I've heard the use of a terminal described as entering into an interactive conversation with the computer.
That is, where users of a point-and-click interface might interact with a computer superficially, the command-line allows for a fluidity of expression and progression of intent that it's extremely difficult to supplant.
When you realize this, the mistake this comic makes is obvious: the command-line is, for many problem domains, simply a superior method of human-computer interaction. In fact, in many ways, it's the GUI that squanders the immense power we have at our fingertips, as it frequently makes it more difficult to express intent rather than less.
For example, here's a basic task: Find all files in a given directory with spaces in their names, and replace those spaces with underscores.
At a command-line I can think of any number of ways to solve this problem. I'd probably opt for a combination of find, sed, and bash looping.
Now try to do this efficiently in any existing GUI interface that isn't purpose built for this exact operation.
The conversations we enter into on the command-line allow us to iteratively build up solutions to problems, solving them with simple, composable tools. There is simply no GUI equivalent.
The "conversation with your computer" aside (which basically comes down to "REPLs trump more static solutions"), I find that many really awesome solutions for problems came out of restrictions on resources or interaction possibilities. I assume that Vi and its text operation "language" wouldn't be invented today, even if it never existed; the modern mind wouldn't try not to use a GUI and base everything on keystrokes. It's far more likely that the according programmer would go "well that'd be a nice feature! I'll make a context menu entry for it!".
From a similar perspective: The terminal has by far the best options when it comes down to interacting with program output based on text. There's nothing comparable in the GUI world. Yes, using the terminal to edit pictures would be a Bad Idea™[1][2], but so is using a GUI to do the terminal's job. Pick adequate tools for your job - and if you refuse to: at least don't bother those who do.
[1]: Also, did anyone else note how Blade Runner features the worst user interface for any task in modern sci-fi? I'm talking about the "picture enhancement" scene. That is not the task you want to control with voice input. I imagine terminal-based solutions for image editing would have similar interactions.
[2]: Well, there's Image Magick and the like, but those excel because they're built for repeatability, not interaction.
How so? If it's under individual control, you'll just end up with sub-networks where people will agree to distribute that type of content.
You cannot pair anonymity and security with censorship. They are fundamentally incompatible. So either accept that nasty content will be out there, or acknowledge that you don't actually want perfect anonymity and security.
FWIW, if you look at Tor, Facebook now runs a hidden service that allows people to access Facebook's website. This is essentially the same thing as someone having provided a number of exit nodes that will only route to Facebook. The problem, though, is that this requires the client and maybe even the website to be modified to use the .onion URLs for all accesses back to the site (at least, any absolute URL on the site back to the site will cause a problem). I will personally contend that it is worth it to allow Facebook to do this, or to allow anyone to do this for any website, in order to get more people using the network for everything, as the more users you can get using the service to do normal traffic the more easily you can hide everyone.
This is particularly noticeable given that in some countries, such as the United States where I live, simply accessing the Tor website to download Tor will end up flagging you for further monitoring. If Tor had only as many users and exit nodes as it does right now, but additionally had, for example, a billion people in China accessing Wikipedia through exit nodes that refused to go anywhere but Wikipedia, that makes a world of difference. As it stands, people are actually actively discouraged and even shamed for using Tor to access random websites or ones that use a lot of bandwidth, as that means that they are using (or even "abusing") a limited amount of donated bandwidth that somehow needs to be reserved for those who "really need it" (and thereby, will be targeted just for that).
(edit: When I wrote this answer, the person I was responding to had not yet added "or Tor".)
Freenet builds its own domain of content where people post websites that are hosted in a distributed fashion by the platform. What we are working on with this initial implementation is a fully-decentralized tunneling service to access existing content posted on the internet (so if you were to compare it to an existing technology, you might look at Tor, or the "out-proxies" from I2P).
It seems intended to be more anonymous and decentralized than Tor, and safer thanks to the strength of numbers, but their whitepaper is diseharteningly incomplete and disingenuous, particularly about problems that are shared with Tor.
For example:
"The distribution of Entry Nodes is a difficult topic. If oppressive governments are able to access this list,
they will block user’s abilities to access the list."
Or simply, you know, go after whoever runs entry nodes. Or run their own entry nodes and, even if they can't compromise the network, trace the evil cypherpunks who want to use encryption.
Unfortunately, some practical and political problems cannot be solved with improved cryptography.
Certainly incomplete as it is still a draft, though I'd contest "dishearteningly". Also, why do you find it disingenuous? We're not shying away from what entry nodes and bootstrap of user clients is one of the hardest problems to solve.
There are a number of differences (which one might say would take an entire whitepaper to describe ;P), but as one high-level and in my mind very interesting example, Tor actually is a centralized service where nine directory servers are able to decide the state of the network; we are accepting nothing less than a fully-decentralized system.
Given your question's wording the answer is, at this time and as currently described, "a way of accessing the clearnet", with no already-existing features for hidden services.
There is active discussion of this, which means I am not prepared to say it won't happen or that it can't happen, but I am also not prepared to guarantee it will happen (as then you will ask when ;P).
Differences from Tor include, from what I understand, it is fully decentralized, there are tokens to incentivize people to run nodes, and node operators can choose to use a whitelist.
Also, at least for now, it is not a darknet, it is only for connecting the clearnet.
and they're motivated by money/views/prestige instead of destabilization to fulfill geopolitical goals.
Exactly the point.
Look, there's this thing in western jurisprudence called "mens rea". It's what differentiates, say, first degree murder from manslaughter.
In this case, RT and Sputnik are clearly motivated by the desire to manipulate the US election. As you've already conceded, those other outlets are not. As a result, these represent different acts, and therefore it is not unreasonable for them to warrant different responses.
ROFL, wow, talk about cherry-picking to make a case...
The fact is the US offers the least PTO of any developed nation. Same goes with sick leave and mat/pat leave.
And free lunch? Free bus passes? Stock and option plans, profit sharing, educiation/tuition, retirement, gym memberships... HA!
I know this is shocking, but: most of the world isn't SV. Those benefits are fantasies for the vast majority of American salaried employees.
Many people I know live with 2 weeks of combined PTO, 3 months of maternity leave (mandated by law... ish... there's a bunch of exclusions) and no paternity leave whatsoever, basic health care, and a 401k match if they're lucky.
Now, I'm not claiming that a salaried employee isn't more expensive than a contract employee. That's objectively true. And in a very real sense, the entire point and why this trend is alarming: the more people pushed to underemployement (part-time or contract work), the more people who don't realize those additional benefits, thus contributing to the ongoing demolition of the middle class.
But the US workplace is hideously behind the rest of the western world, and is still managing to lead the way in underemployment as well. After a while you really gotta wonder why that is...
> which is that the cost of those benefits should be added in when comparing salaries.
If any of my past companies are any indication (outside of La La Land California), most of the additional "benefits" are wiped out by my monthly premium for my health insurance "benefit."
Just on this point, I couldn't agree more.
The problem with "venting" is that whomever is listening is almost certainly part of your personal echo chamber. And when dealing with a problem in one's marriage, the last thing people need are mirrors reflecting themselves.
I can't tell you the number of times I've come out of a fight with my wife where, some time later, I realized I was a total ass and needed to apologize for my behaviour.
If I'd "vented" to someone, odds are it would've just hardened my resolve.