agent008t

Sex is very different to the activities he listed. His activities are all about feelings of calm focus, flow, almost meditative joy. You feel pleasantly recharged at the end of it.

Sex is usually very different and all about dopamine-like immediate intense pleasure, excitement, adrenaline. You can build dopamine tolerance and start needing more for the same 'kick'. Afterwards you can end up feeling more low than before due to a dopamine 'valley'. Then there is also the 'Coolidge effect'.

I suspect very different neurotransmitters are involved.

In other words, to exaggerate: the feeling of being in the zone you get from 'repairing stuff' is as similar to the feeling from sex, as the enjoyment of practicing calligraphy or meditation or tai chi is similar to taking heroin.

Is there an actual positive use case to teenagers using instagram?

It seems overall very similar to smoking. It is bad for you; there are strong network effects, as in teenagers get peer pressure to do it if everyone else is doing it; it is difficult to get them to stop once they start; it is difficult to prevent them from starting.

Crimea was effectively allowed to be annexed by Russia.

What is a good way to get into it?

That chart seems to only go back to 1987, which is after the decline in interest rates started: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/REAINTRATREARAT10Y

Simply put, house price is a function of rents for similar houses and the multiple of annual rent that houses sell for. The multiple is primarily a function of interest rates, and a significant proportion of house price increases in recent decades has been the increase in multiple. It is also a function of expected future house price growth - the higher the expectation, the higher the multiple, which is where psychology and FOMO comes into play.

The interesting thing about these ingredients that decide the multiple, is that they can turn sharply. If interest rates go up, and multiple starts to contract, at some point the belief that house prices always go up will be shaken, and instead of pricing in future house price growth, people will start pricing in future contraction.

Level of rents is a function of the state of local economy (broad salary levels, more or less) and house supply. Can probably broadly be approximated as GDP growth - so fairly low.

So at interest rates at very low levels and arguable on the way up, and growth expectations seemingly very positive, and economic growth looking shaky, it looks as if house prices may have more downside than upside.

>buying an asset class that has a history of appreciating in value

Correction - over a time period of decreasing interest rates. Housing, on its own, is a depreciating asset. It is a consumable like a TV. It deteriorates with time.

"Housing always goes up", without an understanding of why it has been going up, can be a dangerous belief and could be one of the reasons why housing at the moment is so expensive relative to rents.

I think a competitive, decentralized system is the way to go.

Basically, you would have independently set and assessed requirements. In the case of universities, it would be admission requirements, that the universities set and independently assess. Students, that want to get to these universities, then use any resource available to them to learn to those requirements. This could be through a mix of online and offline classes, remote learning, evening classes, day school, textbooks, tutors etc. "Official" high school is de-emphasized in this scheme, as there is no way it can provide the right thing for everyone. Nobody should be punished for school absences for pursuing their (academic) interests.

Schools should also do all they can to emphasize academics and de-emphasize sports, to counter-balance the natural tendencies of teenagers.

I still don't get what Twitter's value proposition is. What do you get out of it as a consumer?

I remember how Twitter started. It was this obscure alternative to RSS feeds, that many news channels suddenly started pushing (why?). I remember how they would actively include a segment in nightly news on talking about what has been posted on Twitter, back when it wasn't really anything newsworthy. It did not seem like organic growth to me.

There are two things going on here simultaneously:

1. 'Mainstream' culture - what you hear on the radio or in gyms, see in cinemas, etc. - is getting increasingly homogeneous as it has to cater to the lowest global denominator. This is both because of greater global reach, and because:

2. "Non-mainstream" culture - stuff you have to explicitly look for, and will have relatively small audiences - is doing great. In the sense that there are tons of content out there for all tastes, you can easily access it, but BECAUSE there is something out there for everyone, mostly it has very small market shares and will remain that way.

So there is both consolidation of mainstream and fragmentation of non-mainstream that reinforce each other. The problem is, it makes mainstream stuff worse, more bland (has to appeal to lowest common denominator), and it makes non-mainstream stuff appear niche and unpopular (because each individual niche is unpopular).

As an example - amazing new music being released in the NewRetroWave genre. But you'll never hear it unless you look for it, while 'mainstream' music in the charts is junk. That leads to the feelings of alienation, that today's culture is worse etc. - and it is true. Because of the small reach, you will never hear a retrowave band playing live in an expensive arena with top quality sound engineers. If you are into that kind of music, you will never feel a part of a generation that is into it, because everyone in this generation is into their own niche thing.

Tried to make it in academia, got nowhere (his field of study was theoretical and not trendy), ended up joining Google where he is now underemployed.

There is, but it presents its own problems.

For example - junk food, infinite scroll, instagram, many forms of advertising seem to hijack (for a lot of people, but not all) some of the mechanisms that we have evolved (and that are useful 'in the wild') in a way that does not benefit, and often actively harms, the person.

A culture that actively detects and rejects such things can be somewhat effective, as it can make employing such mechanisms unprofitable. It is still unlikely to protect the most vulnerable.

One could legislate and make such practices illegal. But that raises the problems of 'who decides' and 'where do you draw the line', and of necessity restricts human freedoms (and also creates illegal markets with organized crime). See, for example, narcotics or prostitution (which both are good examples of the hijacking I described). Should we go back to something like the Hayes code for movies?

The fundamental question is whether it is ok to do good to someone against their will.

So why not just use IRC? What makes Discord different/better?

Usually, when there is really, really never a good time for something, the answer is "don't do it", not "go for it ignoring all logic and reason".

Now, there is a difference between just getting cold feet and it actually never being a good time. For example, if you had a choice to sit an exam when ready, you could be tempted to always postpone it another week, because there is always more studying you could do. But realistically, at some point you are actually, objectively ready and should go for it.

So of course you need to consider that one of you will have to become a stay at home parent, or you will need to hire someone to do so instead. That may mean you would need to significantly cut your other expenses, have a much longer commute, live in much worse/smaller accommodation etc. Of course you need to consider if your neighborhood is child-friendly, so that your child can play outside and socialize with other children. If you are planning to involve your relatives, of course you need to first get their informed consent.

Having children is a decision and a choice. You are not forced into it. And it is a choice that must be made responsibly.

Wanting is only a part of the equation. You need to both be willing and able to be a competent parent. Some people lack the emotional stability required, for example. Others don't tend to see such long-term projects to completion, abandoning their hobbies even a few years in. Yet others just don't have the resources, unfortunately as it is, or have other factors significantly limiting their ability to be good parents.

And why is this part of life one where selfishness - "I want that experience for my life" - is applauded and encouraged? Especially given that here, the child suffers if you make a mistake. Humans tend to be far more judgmental about selfish desires where mostly just the selfish person suffers if a mistake is made.

There are other ways to experience the joys of parenthood, especially given that most parents seem to look for any way they can find to offload such joys for some reason. Offer to look after your nieces and nephews for a time, for example. Run a volunteer daycare.

If you are not willing or able to be a good driver, you should not drive. If you are not willing or able to be a good parent, do not have children. Do think about the decision very, very carefully - the stakes are very high. If you don't end up having children - well, at least you didn't end up causing others any harm.

But I understand what you are saying - you should also recognize the situation where you are, in fact, ready. It's like being able to choose when to sit an exam - there is always another week you can spend studying, and at some point you have to decide you are ready once you are in fact reasonably prepared.

Why is it 'catastrophically' low? It is not obvious to me that the UK, for example, would not enjoy much higher standards of living if it had half the population. Technology and innovation does not increase the availability of good land and nice housing, but it does massively increase productivity in other areas.

I would also argue that plenty of people that go for children who are not ready for it don't make it just fine. More importantly, their children, that didn't ask for any of it, end up suffering because of their mistakes. Plenty of people have psychological issues of various degrees because of poor parenting. 15% of families in the UK are lone parent families! By age 12 a staggering 40% (!) of children are not living with both birth parents! [1] And these figures are almost twice as bad for low-income families. And out of the children that do live with both birth parents, 11-28% of the parents report an unhappy relationship. That is the catastrophe.

Humans have this strange blindspot where they tend to be irrational and irresponsible about the decision to procreate. Previous generations did not have much of a choice because of lack of available contraception, lack of knowledge. Our generation has no excuse.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

That is not a good reason to have children when it is not the right time. You are gambling with someone else's life. Absolutely do wait until it is the right time, and if it never comes - do not have children.

"If you want kids, just have the kids" sounds very irresponsible - a good way to create a lot of suffering. It is not a decision you can reverse. You should give it a lot more thought than to choosing your career, where/how you live, or to getting a pet. It is shocking that so often it is the opposite, and people 'yolo' into this decision. If anything, you should err on the side of not having children, unless you are very, very sure:

1. You will still want to be spending overwhelming majority of your time on children in 1, 2, 5, 10 years at least and will be enjoying it.

2. You are in a position to be consistently spending enough time and effort and other resources on them.

3. You are very confident you will be able to be a good parent, and that you are bringing new life into a good environment that both you and them will enjoy.

You need to be in a very good, stable place both physically and mentally for sure before you even consider it.

Having children is hard. Why do you think it would've been easier physically, mentally, career-wise when you are a lot less established and more stressed in the early 20s?

Isn't the conclusion here "Young children will make your life worse, do not have them"?

It's a question of trust, for starters?

Wouldn't be surprised - still discovering new things in that game 22 (!) years later!

Morpheus: The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.

JC Denton: Electronic surveillance hardly inspires reverence. Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence.

Morpheus: God and the gods were apparitions of observation, judgment and punishment. Other sentiments towards them were secondary.

JC Denton: No one will ever worship a software entity peering at them through a camera.

Morpheus: The human organism always worships. First, it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment.

JC Denton: You underestimate humankind's love of freedom.

Morpheus: The individual desires judgment. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization.

What are the actual differences between millenials and gen z? I would argue both are characterized by the fact that there is no single fit-all characteristic. There is no common pop-culture to define a generation any more.

A battery, arguably along with storage, needs a very very good reason to not be upgradeable.

Old Nokia phones that are 20+ years old can still be used. PCs and consoles from the 90s are still perfectly usable with their original software. Smartphones have been 'good enough' for nearly a decade - why is there not a legitimate 'buy it for life' version?

I am not saying Android is better - just using Apple as an example. Although it does seem like there are more options of at least reusing the hardware in some way with an Android device. I am not sure where exactly the problem is or how to solve it, but there seems to be something fundamentally wrong about the whole thing.

The biggest problem with the iPhone to me is forced obsolescence. A device from 2014 (iPhone 6) is no longer able to run many apps, because it doesn't support iOS versions past 12. Many of these apps are essentially just web pages, so in principle the hardware should be more than capable of running them. But instead you are pushed to ditch perfectly functional and capable hardware in favour of a new model.

Compare that with the PC world. A laptop from 2011 can still both run Windows 10 and pretty much anything you want, assuming your hardware is able to process it fast enough - which for many use cases it is.

What is the point of abbreviation like TINA, if people usually specify what they mean every time they use them?

This is how I feel as well. I think combining meditation with good psychotherapy is almost a must. Meditation allows things from subconscious to rise to the conscious, and psychotherapy allows you to work through them and resolve them.

I would guess that in the past, meditation teachers fulfilled the psychotherapist role. But an actual qualified therapist would be much better - especially now that meditation is a relatively common aspect of psychotherapy.

In fact, it seems like there is a lot of similarity generally between the role that priests of all kinds were supposed to perform in a community, and therapists. I wonder if it would be a good idea for humanity to essentially build a secular replacement to religion like that.

Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.

One of the points about meditation is about being present, fully experiencing the present moment. By fully experiencing every present moment, you fully experience your life. The opposite would be living perpetually in the future or in the past; not living your life, but continuously preparing to start living it some day.

In your example, the beavers being present and building a dam/collecting fruits are in fact the equivalent of skilled meditators. Dave 'lost in his thoughts' is a person unskilled in meditation, the default situation for a lot of people a lot of the time. Consider how many hours a week people tend to spend distracting themselves, 'lost in their thoughts' - time better spent just sitting and doing nothing, getting bored, and then getting an urge to be creative - like when you were a child.