It’s not fine if the code needs to be used by other scientists though, which it often will be, even within the same research group. I have a friend who worked in a lab where one of their PhD students wrote a bunch of helpful code that was an unmaintainable mess that ended up breaking a lot of work flows at some point a year or so after the creator of it had left. It was kludge upon kludge upon kludge, and the thing that finally broke seemed to be dependency related, but I couldn’t figure out what the hell was going on with it (I was asked to take a look).

There’s a lot of duplicated effort in science. Scientists tend not to think about stuff like software ecosystems unless they’re in a subfield that has been doing computational stuff for a long while, like bioinformatics. When it comes to code, there’s a lot of inventing the wheel from scratch and that leads to weird square wheels that work good enough to then have more code built on top of them. Software might not be scientists’ product in the same way as it is for IT people, but it often ends up being a part of the wider product of methodological reproducibility

(disclaimer: I haven’t read the article, I’m just replying to you because your comment was interesting)

I think your theoretical vs practical framing is useful, but as a (non-computer-)scientist, I find it fascinating to consider how a biomedical scientist uses programming compared to someone whose background is much more grounded on the compsci/IT/programming side.^[1]

[1]: I sometimes joke that, compared to many of my scientist colleagues, I am an exceptional programmer, and this says a lot about the average quality of the code that scientists tend to write when they don’t have much dedicated training or experience in programming

You’re great at explaining this, thanks for giving these examples

I learned this a few years ago and my mind was blown because I’m autistic and this is indeed my instinct. I have also found that neurodivergent people are more likely to respond positively to an anecdote.

Neurotypical people tend to react better to “reflective listening” — basically the “it sucks” button, but more expanded. Like if someone is venting about something, I might say “That sounds really frustrating”, or similar. It feels like playing conversational ping pong where I’m not an active participant in the rally, but just reacting to my conversation partner’s shots.

I don’t tend to find reflective listening especially helpful if I’m the recipient of it (I cope with problems differently), so it blew my mind when I was trying to support a friend with these techniques and they ended the conversation by thanking me for the support, and they really needed that. It baffled me because I hadn’t felt like I’d said anything really at all, besides just reflecting stuff back at them, which felt sort of like small talk but even more superficial. But nah, turns out that different people find different kinds of support helpful. The_More_You_Know.jpg

It sounds like you have this sorted now, but I will share my tip anyway.

My master password was a randomly generated pass phrase of a few words, such as what you can generate with Bitwarden’s password generator set to “passphrase”

Using an example I’ve just generated with that tool, if I had decided on a master password of “Daily-Exorcist-Nappy-Cornmeal”, then I would generate a few more passwords and write those down too. So I’d have a list that might look like this:

snowman

daily

uncanny

backer

exorcist

thinner

showoff

nappy

cornmeal

nifty

(I have bolded the words belonging to the actual master password from my example above, but obviously that’s not how it’d be written down. To remember that the passphrase has the words separated by hyphens, you could draw dashed lines around the list, like a decorative border. Here, I have also written words all in lowercase, even though the password has uppercase. (Though I would advise keeping the passphrase in the correct order, as I have in this example, because it’s easy to pick out the correct four words from a list like this, but harder to remember the right order for them).

I don’t have a safe either, but writing things down like this felt like a sufficient level of security against snooping family and the like. Though like I say, it seems like you’ve resolved this differently, so this is more for others who may stumble across this than for you.

I agree with you that the emergency access feature is great. A couple of years ago, my best friend died and I ended up being a sort of “digital steward” of all his stuff, because I was his tech guy and he had shitty passwords that I couldn’t convince him to change. In the end, his laziness meant we got to preserve some digital mementos that would otherwise be lost (such as his favourite decks on Magic:Arena). At the time, I was using a personal system to generate and remember passwords, and I was shaken to consider how much would be lost if I died. I feel far more at ease now with the Emergency Access feature from Bitwarden Premium (I also like being able to use Bitwarden for 2FA codes). I’m sorry that you had the unfortunate experience of being locked out of your stuff, but I’m glad you were able to secure yourself such that you’re protected from that in future.

“Eeyup, ars thar doin’? Ad be reyt, but av lost me notes of me password— tin tin tin”

(This was an attempt at transcribing someone saying in a heavy Yorkshire accent: “Hello, how are you doing? I would be okay, but I’ve lost my notes of my password. It isn’t in the tin”. (I had to squeeze in “tin tin tin” to this somehow because that’s one of my favourite mini jokes about heavy Yorkshire accents.)

It was an obtuse, lazy and (in hindsight) now very funny joke.

“Neoliberal” because one of the key ideological aspects of neoliberalism is the emphasis on individual responsibility. The big example that comes to mind is how the phrase “carbon footprint” was coined and popularised by oil companies as part of an advertising campaign to shift responsibility for climate change from fossil fuel companies to individual consumers.

“Greenwashing” was getting at the bullshit around recycling (which you also highlight in your comment). Often this isn’t as blatant as it is here: even if there were two bags, it’s likely that very little, if any, of the “recycling” bag would actually be recycled, and that the effort spent in separating recycling from regular trash is wasted energy that only perpetuates the feeling of doing something positive for the environment.

I found the image striking because although it isn’t hard to spot that there’s only one bag and that it doesn’t matter which hole someone throws their rubbish, I think it’s likely that someone passing by quickly wouldn’t notice this (especially if opaque bin bags were used). This is offensive to me because I’m finding that many people nowadays are struggling with chronic decision fatigue due to being worn down by the modern attention economy, and I consider the “personal responsibility” facet of climate change PR to be a facet of this. That’s what caused me to comment, but I didn’t know how to capture what I wanted to convey in a quick and straightforward manner, so I went for the lazy reply that, in hindsight, didn’t add anything meaningful to the conversation. I hope this is clearer, despite lacking in brevity

Neoliberal greenwashing go brrr

“This isn’t about being spec-compliant anymore. I need to know the thought process behind this decision. And also please fix it.”

This unhinged tone is what I live for in blog posts

Edit: added hyperbole to make humourous intent clearer

Thanks for posting, OP. I have replied to a few people’s comments in this thread, and I’m really appreciating you sharing this post which has led to such thought-provoking discussion.

Oh man, you’re so right in highlighting how this problem manifests even in art. In a way, hobby related stuff is even harder because there’s a weird pressure arising from a sense that you’re not allowed to enjoy things that you’re not good at. And like, how are you meant to get better at a thing if it doesn’t feel permissible to be mediocre at it for a while? What if you don’t want to get better at a thing, what if someone is happy to just have fun with a hobby and doesn’t care if they are consistently mediocre at it, because they’re doing it for themselves.

And it doesn’t get better if you are good at the thing. Suddenly you’ve got people saying “wow, you’re so good at that, you should sell them”, and that’s then even more pressure because it reinforces the constant feeling that not only must one strive for the “correct answer” in all things, but that progress towards this answer involves selling the products of one’s labour because that’s how we try to translate intangibles into measurable numbers. But the logic falls apart because excellent leather craftsmanship, for example, isn’t at all related to one’s ability to be running a business, and every time I have monetised a hobby, it kills the joy of the craft. Similarly, I have a friend who is an artist who used to be earning money from art, but they got sick of doing pet portraiture and got an office job so they could regain art as a hobby. Things that sell well != Things that are good (and that’s even before we consider the Intrinsic value in dabbling in hobbies and creativity for fun’s sake)

I’ve seen a few people recommend that book, I should check it out.

A way of thinking about tech that I’ve found interesting is what philosopher Bernard Stiegler refers to as “φάρμακον”, or “pharmakon” (the greek root from where we get “pharmacy”). He uses the greek not just to be a pretentious arse, but because whilst it most directly translates to “medicine”, pharmakon also can mean a poison or toxin. Stiegler argues that technology can be both helpful and harmful, often at once. It depends on how we use it. ^[1]

(I’m reminded here also of Cory Doctorow’s discussion of reverse centaurs, because turning people into reverse centaurs is definitely the vibe of “pharmakon as poison”. At the core of it, most people aren’t being empowered by tech in our lives, and I really feel like we need a collective, radical recalibration around this. Books like “Digital Minimalism” certainly seem to be pushing towards that.

[1]: n.b. I am not a philosopher, nor have I actually directly read Stiegler, just a few people who draw on his work. One such person is Greta Goetz, an academic whose blog is great for people who like dense and wordy philosophy about tech and teaching.

Moissanite is extra sparkly compared to diamonds too

Thank you for the succinct explanation

Subvert expectations by being normal. It’s diabolical.

I really liked this snippet of the article

“When people claim there’s no one to make peace with because the Palestinians hate us, I always say that as an Israeli I can only change my own society. But I want this act of refusal to resonate among Palestinians as well, so that they hear our messages and understand that we want peace. I know from conversations with Palestinian friends over the years that this is something they deeply value. I’m not doing this for them; I’m doing it for myself, but I want a continuous connection with them so they don’t give up on the struggle.”

People like this are a minority, but they exist, and that makes me hopeful

It’s very difficult to say “All Souls College” without sounding like you’re saying “Arsehole’s College”

Thanks for this recommendation. Diverse perspectives are important in underscoring that the Israeli people are not a monolith, and that they are distinct from the state of Israel.

I often see people online speaking about Israelis as though all of them are in favour of the ongoing genocide, when this is simply not the case. That’s not to say that Netanyahu’s control of the media hasn’t led to a depressingly high proportion of Israelis to see themselves as righteous victims — years of state propaganda has unfortunately had an impact. However, there are journalists and activists (Jewish or otherwise) who are working to challenge this rhetoric.

I saw an article recently that looked at the rates of suicide in Israeli soldiers. One guy, who featured heavily in the article, had killed himself after being an IDF bulldozer driver. The article tried to dial up sympathy for him, but additional coverage (in response to this article) highlighted that this guy had posted some pretty horrifying stuff on social media — stuff like videos and photos of him in Gaza, being pretty jovial as he drove through bodies and buildings. I wonder whether the PTSD he experienced afterwards was a sort of moral immune system, and that once he was away from the kind of military camaraderie that normalises atrocities, if he began to reflect on his part in this genocide. At least for him, we’ll never know.

A Jewish, anti-Zionist friend who lived in Israel for a while said that it was disturbing to see how much the Holocaust was leveraged to make people feel scared and insecure. I imagine many members of the IDF do genuinely believe that most, if not all Palestinians hate all Jews and want them to die. That way, they can enthusiastically participate, believing that they are on the side of justice.

I once punched a Nazi at a gig, and I did enjoy it, because it feels good to be righteous and angry. Enough so that it makes me anxious about how easy it would be to lean into anger if it feels righteous.

Unfortunately, learning about things doesn’t always help. I’m still very scared of spiders, despite being big on team learning. Some fears are rational, some are irrational, and these have very different salves.