Which is fine. Goals shift and can even completely disappear, forcing you to pick another one. But having and pursuing long term goals at most times is still the ticket for success. My 2c.

Nothing wrong in rationalizing content sharing; as in rationalizing copyright. But IMO the current form of the copyright for both the technical and the creative works is a cure that is worse than the disease.

Recommending to an individual to work on changing copyright from within the system is, IMO, naive.

> Immich solves the wrong problem. I just want the household to share photos

That is a totally reasonable view. But others have different preferences. I, for example, do not want to share all my photos with Google, govvies and anyone else they leak them to.

So I self host, back up and share my files with the family. I can always dump what I want to insta, etc. but it is my choice what to share, picture by picture, with default "off". And have no dark patterns trying to catch a finger accidentally hitting a "back up to cloud" for the full album.

That, to me, is a big deal, worth dealing with occasional IT hassles for. Which is just a personal preference.

>> Immich solves the wrong problem. I just want the household to share photos

pixelfed may be what the parent want then. I don't like that it is PHP, but as long as they adhere to the ActPub protocal, we can roll our own in whatever flavor.

Or perhaps Photoview? https://github.com/photoview/photoview

Just a personal opinion, but as an occasional job seeker here, I prefer the current system, seeing "no complaints in replies" policy as efficiency, not censorship. Were it not the case I suspect many job postings would become discussion battlegrounds and people looking for brief summaries would have to scroll through pages of discussions.

It is a painful process for both the seekers (who feel they are being ghosted) and the employers (who feel they are being spammed by AI bots); IMO the best approach is to follow the general HN guidance of "be kind" and "assume good intentions". And if a company ghosted you, downvote their post. My 2c.

> "I suspect many job postings would become discussion battlegrounds"

I suspect they wouldn't. I suspect companies that ghost and post fake jobs wouldn't even reply. And companies that have real job posts would reply and have a chance to convince the job is real.

People already have to scroll a ton of job posts that are not for them (due to stack, location, seniority, whatever) and the [-] button is pretty efficient in hiding long discussions.

I think you've responded to this better than I ever have - thank you!

Depends on the specific incarnation of the democracy. Not infrequently in elections the majority sees the choice as the one of the lesser evil.

For example: allocating the resources to only few industries deprives everyone else: small players, hobbyists, gamers, tinkerers from opportunities to play with their toys. And small players playing with random toys is a source of multiple innovations.

Chatgpt is not the only game in town. Any exclusivity deal will likely backfire against chatgpt.

This is probably research into protocol for time sync. Which works well for some scenarios, but not yet for others and can improve the reference implementation (I guess; I have no hard knowledge there).

And given that ntp.org runs servers that so many organizations use they should be near the top of the funding queue for any NTP research. My 2c.

It is not a free thinking paradise in academia either. Different groups fighting for hiring, promotions and influence exist there, too. And it tends to be more pronounced: it is much easier in industry to find a comparable job to escape a toxic environment, so a lot of problems in academia settings steam forever.

But the skill sets to avoid and survive personnel issues in academia is different from industry. My 2c.

This is likely very regional. As a single data point, raising the family in the Boston area for the last 25 years I do not recall not being able to see a doctor the same day for the regular scares, from ear pains and high fever to falling and later vomiting (is this a concussion?).

A few times when we needed to see specialists, we often saw them within 24 hours; occasionally longer but I would say with a median of 48-72 hours. Even things that are clearly not urgent (for dermatologist "hey, I have forgotten about skin checks for the last 2 years, can we do the next one now", for ENT "hey, my son is getting nosebleeds during high intensity sports; can you check if there is a specific blood vessel that is causing problems"?) always happened well within two weeks. Three caveats to this happy story:

1. This is Boston area with likely the highest concentration of medical practitioners of all kinds in the US. I had good insurance with a large network, decent out-of-network coverage and for most cases not needed a pre-approval to see a specialist.

2. Everyone is generally healthy and our "specialist needs" were likely well trodden paths with many available specialists.

3. Our usage of the doctors, as the kids became generally healthy teenagers and adults, dropped significantly in the last 5-7 years. I hear post-covid the situation is changing and I may be heavily skewing to the earlier period.

At least from what I can see, COVID and the changes in attitudes towards medical professionals are driving a lot of burnout and leaving the profession; and since then economic pressures are squeezing private practices out of existence and a lot of specialists end up working for private equity now.