My trick is to find athletic activities that are things I would do for entertainment even if they didn’t confer any training benefit. Soccer, tennis, ultimate, and climbing are my current go-tos. It’s really easy to do 7 workouts a week when it’s all stuff you want to do for fun. Like discipline is great and all, but leverage your reward mechanisms as much as you possibly can. Also, it comes with the added benefit of making more friends.
Just a reminder that this is the equivalent of spray painting a poster put up somewhere by the FSB, and doesn’t constitute any kind of incursion into any system the FSB relies on or cares about.
For me, it wasn’t getting better at taking rejection, but quitting putting emotional investment into job applications (or whatever else) on the front end. Quit fantasizing about how great the work/your coworkers/the comp will be and just treat it like the roll of the dice it is.
I feel like that doesn’t quite count as a secret, if the aim is explicitly to show people a fully expressed idea as opposed to something theoretical/conceptual.
Hot take: conference calls are superior to zoom meetings in every way, because they don’t give you the false sense of presence. Everyone else is a disembodied voice, and you don’t have any option of pretending otherwise so you have to figure out how to understand and be understood without the benefit of your other senses. Also, longwindedness is, in my experience, much more difficult because people that like to talk a little too much don’t get the feedback of head nods and smiles, so they tend to get to the point.
WSB started as a canard to get more drunk tourists to the small stakes poker tables, in this analogy the poker table is low volume options where you can get a handful of robinhood investors to move the price and make a quick thousand bucks. It’s still that today, but larger players with more money figured out that they could do that too, and potentially on a larger scale. That’s what this has always been about. There’s no movement, there’s no postmodern narrative, it’s just a bunch of people pumping and dumping and using the “movement” thing as a fig leaf.
Off. My firm was mostly remote pre pandemic and everything was done by conference call most of the time. I actually like it a lot more because it places more focus on content.
There are intelligent, well educated people that I personally hold in high esteem that take Twitter seriously and it weirds me out because they ostensibly to know better. I do not know anyone that takes Reddit seriously. I’m guessing that I’m not the only one here who feels that way.
> But the day I saw the first CoC being used in a community I was interacting with, I started to feel uneasy. I cant really say why, but I feel I dont want to interact with groups which need rules like these.
It’s like being in a school with metal detectors. They don’t make you feel safer, they make you feel like they’re necessary because the people around you mean you harm, even when that’s not at all the case. It’s an implicit threat.
> Yes which supports all kinds of functionality that people like. Just because you have a processor on or mic listening for wake words doesn’t mean everything is always being transmitted or evil is being done.
No, but it means that I’m losing agency in whether or not those things can happen. That’s not ok and not benign.
This means one eighth of humanity uses tik tok once a month. Only about 3.8 billion people worldwide have a smartphone. We’re saying that about one in 4 smartphone users registers a hit on tik tok every month. That seems really high.
Facebook is an ad company that monetizes social interaction and manipulates the social sharing of information for profit. It isn’t just about people interacting negatively, it’s that negative interactions are directly profitable to facebook, they know this, and they act on it.
I also feel like a huge piece of art being fun and interesting is the human to human communication aspect of it. Dali, without knowing he’s Dali and what he and the rest of his generation saw, talked about, wrote about, and valued is just a bunch of goofy nonsense, albeit technically well executed.
To put a finer point on it: in order to believe that state actors are not major players in online discourse, you would have to assume that governments looked at Occupy, the Arab spring, BLM, Hong Kong, etc and consciously decided that opinion on the internet isn’t relevant enough to their strategic objectives to spend a few million a year on internet influence operations. That seems like an absurd assumption.
They’re not assuming that the natural world is stupid. They’re doing what good scientists do, which is to not take for granted that human interpretations of the world are universal/true/even make any kind of sense from the social standpoint of other mammals.
How much of a role did these groups play in anyone’s decision making here? I’ve never gotten the impression that either of these groups to be especially influential outside of getting congressional reps to occasionally sponsor symbolic legislative fights. Like you can run all the media that you want but ultimately banning porn from the internet is a pretty quixotic endeavor and the stakeholders in OF know this. Where’s the leverage?
> I'm no fan of Facebook but if they didn't stop the research they could be found guilty again for the exact same reason
The people that run Facebook are vain, greedy, and utterly uninterested in the public good, but they are not stupid and are almost certainly aware of the existence of telephones and email. They undoubtedly understood that banning a public interest research group is a fundamentally different activity than banning advertising firms or other commercial actors, and had they been interested in actually following the law here this would have involved communication with FTC about what they should do in this situation. It apparently didn’t.
Most defense and intelligence agencies have been, for the past two decades, calling the internet the most important conflict space of the 21st century. Why no one took them seriously is beyond me.
What this didn’t touch on was the availability of likes/interactions for money. This seems to be the much more pernicious attack vector, because you don’t need to write fake content and risk exposure to any serious extent. There are already plenty of people saying antivax (or insert your favorite conspiracy theory) things, and it’s much easier to just hand them a megaphone instead of creating your own content. Any possible message you would want to spread as a state actor is almost certainly out there, and it’s better to find natural occurrences of it and simply amplify those voices.
I would also be interested in seeing what this number was over the previous 5 decades. My guess is that it’s not changed much. This doesn’t say anything meaningful other than that it’s a bad metric, but it has a whiff of plato complaining about the youth.