My worry cuts the other way… FSD is more globally and consistently attentive than I am.

Those moments always make me think they’re going for a scripted conversation style where the “learner” is picking up the thread too quickly and interjecting their epiphany inline for the benefit of the listener.

VR doesn't survive a couple days of non-gaming use.

Which makes the overall experience worse for hiring managers and qualified applicants.

And in turn we turn more to automated tools to filter even though we know they are rejecting good people who just didn't write some keyword. In turn applicants are writing worse resumes just to ensure they have the right keywords even if they honestly barely have it (NEVER say you have a keyword you don't have, but if you just barely have it put it on and prepare to explain how little you know if that really is important)

Don’t write about it; use it. The real world application of a new skill fleshes out your understanding in a way that is less vulnerable to your own blind spots, is absorbed at a pre-lingual level (closer to your bare metal), and might actually produce something of value along the way.

using it is the first step. explaining it to others the next, and finally to really understand, writing about it so others understand it really embeds the knowledge.

This is why written cultures in engineering organisations are so powerful, especially if you disseminate the responsibility of writing.

I guess I’d say “using it” should be steps 1, 2, and 3. Explaining it and writing about it are generous ways to share your understanding, but in my mind that’s a different goal.

I have found that using "it" is a lot easier than writing about "it". It is not about being generous it is about deepening the knowledge in your mind and structuring it. different strokes and all that. In my engineering teams I enforce a "Written culture", from the bottom up (so mids and juniors are forced to write), as much as possible.

Writing software that powers open speech might be the strongest way to oppose China.

Not when the people who run that software happily support China.

I've said it elsewhere in this thread, but unless you want to audit the whole network stack, maintain that software going forward, and somehow totally disconnect the name Lemmy from the people who wrote the software, you're empowering them by using it.

And while China does not support free speech within their country, sure they would be ecstatic to have the opportunity to own run or maintain or have people friendly to them owning running and maintaining software that other countries use to have speech within themselves.

It would be very foolish to give them that ability.