456 karma · joined January 11, 2017
Wow, this must be what it feels like to be living on a parabolic curve...
I guess it's about as viable as Dogecoin.
I feel like part of the solution to reducing consumption at the very least is to realize what the initiating triggers and needs of your consumption are, and trying to find a way to sate them in a way that allows you to chunk a time to engage with high-quality solutions to your consumption needs -- and then that frees up more time to be a creator.
As for the active producer part -- the only insight I've really gathered is that you want to commit yourself to something big and imposes costs on yourself (i.e time already dedicated to that project) to make yourself follow through (i.e use the sunk cost fallacy to your advantage).
With that said, I'm not exactly sure what type of career path somebody studying, say, political science could embark on -- it seems to me that there's a lot more demand for accreditation in certain fields than there is demand for actual practitioners.
"A company’s narrative moves like a clock: it starts at midnight, ticking off the hours. The tone and sentiment about how a business is doing move from positive (sunrise, midday) to negative (dusk, darkness). And often the story returns to midnight, rebirth and a new day."
I feel like Uber is starting to see if it can hit midnight.
Granted, both had deep experience in politics before cutting their skin in the game and staking themselves out in a major way. But I no longer see age and perceived experience as a major obstacle to policy-making and electability -- especially in an age where most people are yearning for a different kind of politics.
I get that this is probably social hacking/phishing, so not really analogous -- but I wonder if there's a way to apply that kind of mentality to good. I wonder if there's white hat phishing (though I guess that might be oxymoronic).
Interesting space to get involved in, for sure.
I think a lot of people are "rich on paper" and scared to know exactly what that means.
As a corollary to this, I've recently seen private secondary markets boom quite rapidly. There's probably a huge opportunity there.
With that said, a lot of companies hiring for data science roles fall into the category of software startups -- larger companies like Google or Facebook are looking for specialists who tend to hold degrees. But at smaller companies, you can be more of a generalist and there, the old mantra of "show me what you've built" often applies. You could build out a data science career if you found just the right company.
By no means is it easy, but I wouldn't say it's a waste of your time (unless you have some incredible opportunity cost you're using up).
If you were to go about doing it, I found this blog post that can help you with your plan of attack: https://www.springboard.com/blog/learn-data-science-without-...
Real (CPI as inflation) averaged annualized return on the DJIA 2000-2010: -2.219%
This is with relatively mild inflation.
Of course, 1960-2000 looks better when you literally put in the apex of the software bubble when P/E ratios shot skywards...part of which corrected over the decade following.
Expecting a 8% nominal or real return is simply nuts in my opinion because you are staking yourself on a really small sample size with crazy inflation to boot. Nominal or real is a nuanced distinction to what is plainly just bad overfit thinking. The introduction of just one decade with low inflation and bad returns can wreck you -- case in point: Dallas Firefighters/Puerto Rico ($43bn + of unfunded pension obligations)/Detroit etc. etc. etc.
"During the 20th Century, the Dow advanced from 66 to 11,497. This gain, though it appears huge, shrinks to 5.3% when compounded annually."
http://davidgcrane.org/?page_id=702
It doesn't auger well for the future of stable financial markets. Weak localities will fail, and eventually the states that have to support them. Puerto Rico is the canary in the coal mine.
Talent is distributed unevenly, but I don't think a series of competing local lobbies will change that. I've always thought that all of the local ecosystems for which talent flows unevenly should think seriously about banding together and working on policies that 1) increase overall talent availability 2) distribute its spread more evenly -- 1 would involve working to get Congress to create incentives for entrepreneurs/high-skilled workers of all kinds to come to America in the first place, for example, while 2 might be a combination of infrastructure/tax policies.