I don't think the point is that you have to be all of those things, or even any of them. Just that imagining what kinds of things people you'd like do is a good way to know what might enrich you also. You shouldn't be discouraged if that seems far off, but all of it can be broken up into as many pieces as you like. If it all feels too much

I don't think anyone is asking for perfect, I think they are asking for "good enough".

If I may be blunt, it sound more like you might have some self-esteem issues, or shame, or just plain immaturity.

That implies they think some people (apparently the ones who eat takeout or don't go to gym), are just not "good enough" to have friends. It's an esteem for others issue.

disagree. I've felt the same after reading the same but I believe op tries just to point out that when you're the best version of yourselves, by removing the common denominator of bad versions, you'll be noticed more and that presents an interesting way for people to present a chance themselves to hear/see you. From there you get to go and may be, may be you find yourselves with a good friend. More importantly,Ithe confidence you'll get out of this is immense and you'll feel peace spending time for yourselves instead of feeling bad about having all the time and don't have anyone to spend with.. I cant say this advice helped me 100% but atleast it helped reduce the biased stress you put on yourselves.

I'm all for trying to be the best version of yourself, but I think it's discouraging to tie it with the person's worth as a friend. Replying with "find interesting hobby" to the poster who explicitly wrote he finds it hard to find a hobby in particular reads like condemnation, as if until you don't lock in and check those boxes don't even try to socialize. Imagine you meet an interesting person, learn they don't really have any hobbies, and break off a friendship because of it - I'd find that psychopathic. Why should we foster this attitude towards ourselves?

True. I realise my reply reflected a little of " don't even try to socialize untill you've checked all these boxes and the best version" which is wrong.. I merely pointed out / defended the realism od the comment I replied to. The definition is not and never should be the "hobbies". It's just something you find interesting which brings the parity to you and the other person. not necessarily a hobby and could be of anything.. Hobby is just a common way suggested to find people and then, only then, you get a change to know whether they are interesting.

It's not that not having hobbies makes you not worth befriending, it's that having hobbies is one thing that makes people more interesting, and makes it easier to make friends.

> hey chatgpt give me a snarky response to this comment that would wittily refute the argument, make it funny and interesting, concise and to the point

Ah yes, the “tiny little seed” defense — because if I hum three notes and Quincy Jones writes the symphony, clearly we co-composed it.

Sure, prompting involves taste and direction. So does ordering at a restaurant. But if I tell the chef “spicy, but make it fusion” and then Instagram the plate as my culinary creation, I’m not suddenly Gordon Ramsay.

Nobody’s saying there’s zero input. We’re saying input isn’t authorship. A seed isn’t a forest — and picking your favorite output isn’t the same as growing it.

The solution to social anxiety suggested in the article boils down to "just stop being anxious".

I'm glad for people who don't struggle with this, I just wish they would be more empathetic.

It's exactly concerns like these that could drive people into loneliness and nihilism, when constant disappointment with a lack of care from society turns into hatred and despair.

Also doomerism, but I'd argue that a prominent figure that might fit this nihilism bill is / are Elon Musk and similar technocrats / futurists who strongly believe in Roko's Basilisk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk), that is, to paraphrase, "the world is doomed, AI will rise, become our God, and exterminate humankind, but we have to ensure it actually emerges so maybe they will be merciful to us". Which I believe (but I'm no philosopher) is both nihilistic, fatalistic and religious thinking.

To the point where I wouldn't be surprised if these people have or would kill people if they aren't in line with their agendas. They have the connections, power and money.

Is it the first time when workers directly work on their own replacement? If so, software developer may go down in history as the dumbest profession ever.

but annoying hype is exactly the issue with AI in my eyes. I get it's a useful tool in moderation and all, but I also experience that management values speed and quantity of delivery above all else, and hype-driven as they are I fear they will run this industry to the ground and we as users and customers will have to deal with the world where software is permanently broken as a giant pile of unmaintainable vibe code and no experienced junior developers to boot.

>management values speed and quantity of delivery above all else

I don't know about you but this has been the case for my entire career. Mgmt never gave a shit about beautiful code or tech debt or maintainability or how enlightened I felt writing code.

> Interesting that every time Helix comes up, someone just has to mention Neovim.

that apparently includes helix's creators, considering neovim is mentioned both on its website and in its repository's readme

this used to be a valid selling point for helix until neovim added LSP and treesitter support to the editor, which happened years ago. modern neovim is quite capable out of the box.

search for a plain english translation, it's out there

GNU ls sorts alphabetically "if none of -cftuvSUX nor --sort is specified".