Sounds like you haven’t been on the same corners of the internet as I have, because reading about co-washing is not strange to me. Have you been to hair care communities?

I’m really glad this exists! Thanks for sharing it!

Huh. That’s interesting. Are the MacOS coreutils incapable or not user-friendly in some way? Or is it more that they’re too different for people who know GNU and BSD coreutils?

I also wonder if their coreutils are open source. I quickly tried searching here but couldn’t find an answer https://opensource.apple.com/releases/

Huh. Mid 20th century? But that’s when America transitioned to relatively high and progressive income taxes instead of relying on tariffs. It’s also when massive state spending on education lead to a large chunk of Americans being able to care about something other than themselves, a precursor to progressivism in America and the civil rights movement.

If anything, I think Americans appear to want to go back to the Gilded Age, known for its massive inequality, corruption, and excessive-wealth-flaunting.

Thanks for the response. I’m ignorant in this topic. How is MacOS horrific?

It sounds like you really value skill, precision, and usefulness.

Fair enough. Now that I think about it, maybe the developer experience in Apple products are not universally lauded.

For example, I remembered Pirate Software saying that he didn’t develop for Mac because it was a pain, including having to pay Apple $100 yearly to distribute code without issues. Additionally, I remember my brother meeting a Spotify developer, and the Spotify developer said that Apple makes great hardware but lackluster software.

At the same time, it seems like Swift is not a hated language. The 2023 and 2024 Stack Overflow developer survey reports that, even though few people use Swift (~5% of developers), there’s ~60% of admiration for the language.

Oh. I see I was wrong. Amazing. I should look into that! How did you enable it? I did a quick search and found I just need to do gsettings set org.gnome.mutter experimental-features "['scale-monitor-framebuffer']"; is that it?

I’m sorry for having said something untrue. For example, DannyBoy points out that GNOME and whatever Ubuntu uses do have fractional scaling.

However, is my experience untrue? Was I lying when I said that my track-pad two-finger scrolling is frustrating? Furthermore, it’s not unusual for people at work to try my track-pad and it being way too sensitive or too un-sensitive, but no in between.

Was I lying when I said that, for me, it’s hard to get software? Was I lying when I said that maybe this is a skill issue on my part, but even that is indicative of a lack of easy ways of getting reassurance in the way that Apple makes it easy to find software in their App Store?

Was I lying when I said that, to me, GNOME is gorgeous?

Was the creator of the Mojo language lying when he recounted his experience developing Swift?

Was I lying when I said that developers are leaving Linux?

I agree that GNOME and KDE are gorgeous and very polished in many ways. However, I have had some problems in GNOME, Fedora, or Open Suse:

• fractional scaling is not immediately available in Fedora or OpenSuse, at least to users who don’t know how to use the terminal [Edit: Thanks, DannyBoys for pointing out that Ubuntu may have fractional scaling enabled by default and that experimental fractional scaling on GNOME can be activated, at a battery cost]
• the track-pad two-finger scrolling is painful (compared to a Mac) to me and to people who have used my laptop with Fedora or OpenSuse
• sometimes it’s hard for me to get software, especially outside of .debs. For example, in Fedora I had trouble getting Signal Desktop installed from a source that I felt comfortable with (maybe this speaks to my ignorance in how Fedora packages are set up and distributed more than the reality of insecurity, but even this is part of the issue: I couldn’t find any reassurance). To be fair, Open Suse gave me that reassurance, because I understood that YAST was somehow more directly tied to the source (I could be wrong, but that was my impression). However, YAST’s software download software is a far cry from the kind of UX that the GNOME Software app is or the Apple App Store.

Despite these problems, I do have to say that GNOME is absolutely gorgeous. It’s precisely the kind of user-centricity that I want to see in Linux.

However, the end-users aren’t the only users. There are also developers! For example, I remember listening to the developer of the Mojo language talking with Richard Feldman, and the developer said that the development of the Swift language made it clear to him that Apple is aggressively user-centric. I don’t doubt that there are many problems with Swift as with Apple products in general, but I don’t see that kind of discourse in Linux coming from the main maintainers. Instead, there seems to be a vanguard arguing for a better developer experience (such as writing kernel code in Rust), and they find loads of friction. Heck, key developers are leaving Linux!

Edit: Clarified what is strictly my interpretation.

Today, it is practically impossible to survive being a significant Linux maintainer or cross-subsystem contributor if you’re not employed to do it by a corporation. An interviewer to the Linux dev that’s mentioned in the article: “So what did you do next to try to convince the Linux kernel devs of the need for more focus on end-users?”

I appears as if Linux is a nest that is not built with a consistent set of user-centric principles. Instead, it seems that each part of the nest is built with a specific corporation or project in mind.

Assuming I’m right that Linux is built with project-based thinking and not product-based thinking, I do wonder what a user-centric Linux or another user-centric FLOSS OS would be like, an OS that is so smoothly built that users come to think of it not as an OS for tech-savvy people, but an obvious alternative that you install immediately after getting a computer.

If Linux is indeed built with project-based thinking, then I wonder why that is. The uncharitable explanation is that someone doesn’t want Linux to have a MacOS-like smooth and gorgeous experience. If you don’t think MacOS is smooth and gorgeous, I’ll address that.

I know some people have suffered immensely with Apple products not only because Apple builds devices that can’t be repaired, but because of things simply not working. However, there are many people who love Apple. That’s the kind of passionate advocacy that I would love to see in Linux, and not just around freedom and value-based judgements. I want Linux to be thought of as the least-friction tool for professional or recreational use. I want people to think of Linux as gorgeous and usable.

Of course, we can apply Hanlon’s razor to this situation (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by [ignorance or lack of skill or practice].”). Managing a product is difficult. Managing a community is difficult. When the nest’s design is not built by a team constantly seeking to care about users, but instead by a bunch of users pecking into the nest until their corner is shaped the way they want, it’s not surprising to see a lack of user-centricity.

I’m sorry about the soul-sucking coworkers and the outright rejection. It sounds painful and frustrating. Anyone in your position would be frustrated; it only makes sense!

We can look at your situation from two points of views, and each point of view will reveal things that can help you better deal with this situation.

The first point of view is the external one, the observable behavior, the one you’d notice if someone followed you and your coworkers/managers around with cameras. Looking at your situation from this point of view, it sounds like there could be a broad problem with your company’s management. If so, there might be very little that you can do directly. Depending on whether you want to take upon you a massive, perhaps Sisyphean task (pushing a massive boulder up an infinite mountain, with no end in sight), you could check out the management or Agile literature.

By learning what good management looks like, you could be in a better position to accept rough situations, in the same way that understanding how a cold develops could help us accept feeling drained of energy, coughing constantly, and having to self-isolate to avoid spreading the virus. It’s not a solution, but it gives perspective. Beyond acceptance, in the unlikely scenario that your company empowers you, you could propose effective changes or implement them. However, I would not count on this.

If you cannot change your company’s management, there are alternatives. Let’s go from the external point of view to the internal one, your point of view, the point of view that notices emotions, feelings, memories, action impulses, bodily sensations, interpretations, predictions, etc. From this point of view, we can see your frustration, your fear of being thin-skinned, your interpretation of potential rumination. In this other, internal, world of thoughts and emotions, we can’t do the same things that we do in the external world. We can’t get rid of thoughts. We can’t magically transform them.

Others have recommended simply brushing these experiences off, as if they don’t affect you. However, humans hurt where they care. Things that hurt you reveal where your values lie. If you hurt when you see injustice, then justice is a value you hold. If you hurt when you see brutal rejection, then inclusion and kindness are values you hold. It’s inevitable to feel pain when you value something. It’s human. And it explains why you’re hurt; something in you that you value was violated by this experience. A good question to discover what you value is “What would I have to not care about for this not to hurt?” Finding out your values helps you get motivated and gives you purpose, even when the going gets tough.

Still others have talked about changing the way you interpret the situation, including doing it by exposure therapy. This can be effective, as it fundamentally is changing the way that you relate to your thoughts and sensations. However, it’s important to do it with the right motivation. Otherwise, the exposure itself can backfire and reinforce the wrong schemas. What is the right motivation? Well, why would you find it valuable to continue in this job, despite its painful experiences? Maybe it brings stability to your life. Maybe it finances other projects of yours that you find valuable. It’s up to you to decide. If you do find it valuable, then you will be better equipped to push forward even when the going gets tough. I’m not saying this is the only path; again, it’s up to you.

Now, as to pragmatic things that you can do in this internal world, I’d argue that the single easiest, low-risk thing that you can do with the most positive impact is doing the Healthy Minds program or something like it. It will teach you to relate to your thoughts in a healthy way, as well as develop better ways of relating with other people and with your everyday actions, including your work. This will help you regardless of the path that you choose. If you’re willing to invest more to reap more rewards, you could consider therapy such as Acceptance or Commitment Therapy or Process-Based Therapy.

I understand the fear of the bridge being burned down. I also see how that would make Proton like WhatsApp, which has its own protocol and locks its users in. Would it be inaccurate to say that your fear is that Proton pulls an “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” move?

In any case, it’s worthwhile looking at your claims. You mention that Proton is “actively trying to turn open protocols into more closed stuff”.

• Why can I use PGP as the encryption protocol in Proton Mail? Is that a closed protocol?
• Why could I download an archive of all of my emails last December both through IMAP and through MBOX? Are those two “closed stuff”? In fact, I could’ve downloaded my archive as EML; is that a closed protocol?
• Why could I download a copy of my contacts as VCF? Is that a closed protocol?
• Why can I export my Proton Pass passwords as JSON or CSV? Are those closed protocols?
• Is it really tenable to argue that Proton is pulling an “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” move when they support PGP, IMAP, SMTP, MBOX, EML, VCF, JSON, and CSV?

You could argue that it’s simply a matter of time until they pull the rug and close their protocols. Let’s elide the whole discussion regarding the probability of the rug pull happening and instead focus on the present reality: as of December 2024, I could download an archive of everything I have on Proton without a hitch. They do not have the whole Meta thing of “Please give us four working days for us to create an archive of your data”. At least that wasn’t my experience. I could download an archive quickly.

• If users have the capability of downloading open protocol archives of everything they have on Proton, are they really stopping them from going elsewhere?

I understand your concerns of vendor lock-in. The fear is that it could avoid people leaving the service in the future. However, do you know that I use a generic email client that, through IMAP, contains a Proton account?

I hear how much this diagnosis weighs on you. You’re carrying around this knowledge that you have NPD, feeling caught between wanting genuine connections and worrying that being open about this could push people away. It’s a really difficult position to be in: wanting to be authentic with someone you love while facing all this stigma and misconceptions about personality disorders.

You’re not just asking about a diagnosis; you’re asking about how to navigate relationships, how to be genuine with people you care about, and how to handle vulnerability. These are deeply human concerns that go way beyond any diagnostic label.

I’ve know many people who initially saw their diagnoses as permanent labels that defined who they were. I get why: that’s how mental health has been presented to us for decades. We’re told these are distinct categories, clear boxes that people fit into. But here’s something fascinating that recent research has shown: When researchers studied over 3,700 people who shared the same diagnosis of major depression, they found over 1,000 different symptom patterns. More than half of the people had patterns so unique they appeared in less than 0.1% of the group.

This isn’t just true for depression; it applies to most mental health diagnoses. The whole idea of these being clear, distinct categories is breaking down as we look more closely at the science. In fact, despite decades of searching, researchers haven’t found reliable biomarkers for these diagnoses. The DSM workgroup themselves concluded this (page 8 of the pdf here as well as page 18 of the pdf here).

What does this mean for you? Well, it suggests that thinking of NPD as a fixed thing that defines you might not be the most helpful way to look at it. Instead of asking “Will people reject me because I have NPD?”, we might ask different questions: What patterns do you notice in your relationships? What kind of connections do you want to build? What helps you move toward those connections, and what gets in the way?

You mentioned being worried about your current relationship, about whether your boyfriend would still want to be with you if he knew about the diagnosis. That’s a really understandable fear, especially given how personality disorders are often portrayed. But I wonder if we could look at this differently. Instead of thinking about “revealing NPD” as a single big disclosure, what if we thought about building authentic connections in a way that aligns with what matters to you?

The real strength I see in your post isn’t related to any diagnosis, it’s that you care deeply about being genuine in your relationships. You’re wrestling with these questions because connection matters to you. That’s not a symptom; that’s a value. And it’s something you can move toward, step by step, in ways that feel right to you.

I know I often reference ACT and process-based approaches, and some might see that as my go-to solution for everything. But this situation perfectly illustrates why these approaches can be so helpful. Rather than letting a diagnostic label define your path, you can focus on understanding your own patterns, knowing what matters to you, and building psychological flexibility to move toward the life you want.

When you ask “How will NPD affect your social life?”, you’re asking a question that assumes the diagnosis drives everything. But what if we turned it around? What if instead we asked: What kind of social life do you want to build? What patterns help you move toward that? What patterns get in the way? These questions put you in the driver’s seat, not the diagnosis.

This isn’t about denying challenges or pretending patterns don’t exist. It’s about seeing them as processes you can work with rather than permanent labels that define you. The science is increasingly showing us that this is not only more accurate, but more useful for creating change.

You’re not your diagnosis. You’re a person trying to build meaningful connections while dealing with certain patterns of thinking and behaving. Those patterns can change. They might be stubborn sometimes, but they’re not set in stone. What matters is moving toward what’s important to you, one step at a time.

Sure! I’m assuming you’re talking about coffee. I aim to get the best coffee possible as cheap as possible, so these factors are by far not optimized but they’re good enough for me:

• Coffee beans: Getting coffee that you like is maybe the most important factor. The first time I tried floral coffee, I thought my cup was not properly washed and still had detergent in it. Now I know I don’t like floral coffee!
• Water: I hate myself for doing this because of the plastic waste I generate, but buying a massive container of water that has been purified by reverse osmosis consistently results in way better coffee than using my tap water.
• James Hoffman’s V60 recipe v.s. Osmotic flow: James Hoffman’s V60 recipe is a thousand times better. I think the main factor here is agitation; in this case, more is better. I have not experimented much beyond Hoffman’s recipe because I like it. It’s possible I could optimize a bit more with little cost.
• The cheapest grinder my partner used in their previous place v.s. the grinder we recently bought: I am so sorry if I sound like a snob, but getting a grinder that is capable of creating uniform grinds has been game changing. It’s not even close.

The way that I think about these factors is that I’m affecting the extraction of the coffee. I’m trying to take the things that taste good in coffee and leave the things that don’t taste so good. I’m playing a balancing game: not too extracted and bitter, not too underextracted and insipid.

Of course, there are other variables that I could try to optimize for, such as body, acidity, sweetness, etc… Maybe I will someday pay attention to it, and if it’s not expensive or hard to optimize for them, then I’ll be happy to change my way of making coffee. In the meantime, I’m happy with what I’ve got.

In the off chance you meant Scrum and ACT-Advisor stuff:

• In Scrum, I’d say a lot of the experiments end up affecting factors that have, in the literature, already been identified as important: happy workers are more productive, stable interfaces between teams leads to faster development and higher quality work, cross-functional teams are better than having handoffs, etc…
• As to the ACT-Advisor stuff, this may seem obvious, but doing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy improves my scores. I like to see that it’s not only therapy sessions that improve the scores, but also weeks of intensively doing ACT exercises on my own.

• Whenever I change something in my coffee setup, I do blind tastings for myself and sometimes others.
• Scrum retrospectives and Kaizens in a way are experiments to see how to improve 🤷‍♂️
• I regularly answer ACT-Advisor questions to see how I’m doing over time https://stevenchayes.com/tools/

Sorry if this seems strange, but do you do data analysis? If not, I’d be happy to explore and visualize the data! It’s always interesting to me to do it.

This looks impressive for Linux, and I’m glad FLOSS has such an impact! However, I wonder if the numbers are still this good if you consider more supercomputers. Maybe not. Or maybe yes! We’d have to see the evidence.

I should clarify - rather than ‘backfire,’ exaggeration in Majority Judgment either does nothing or carries a social cost. Here’s why:

• If a minority exaggerates votes, the median stays unchanged.
• If everyone exaggerates equally, the same winner emerges, but an artificial high tide of exaggerated grades obscures the real depth of public opinion. This defeats one of MJ’s key strengths: the ability to show when all candidates are viewed poorly and therefore create pressure for better options.

Regarding partisan concerns: Yes, MJ is vulnerable if partisan blocks coordinate to exaggerate grades. However, MJ offers two meaningful advantages in a two-party system:

1. Voters can grade third-party candidates highly without ‘wasting’ their vote, as they can still support their party’s candidate.
2. Once again, poor candidates from both parties could receive revealing low grades, encouraging better alternatives.

Of course, you were hinting at the fact that MJ’s success in a two-party system depends on fostering a political culture where candid evaluation flows more freely than partisan loyalty. But this is the current that all voting systems must swim against; partisan pressure can steer dolphins’ fins at the polling station regardless of the method used.