keymon-o

Scientific claims, of course not. “Scientific” claims, however, should not be that surprising.

Driving may be a necessity while drinking is rarely an obligation. Also driving may cause instant harm while, drinking may cause a very much delayed harm. So, by knowing that not driving or not drinking are the safest choice I can choose to skip having a single drink and avoid driving if I don’t have to, thus completely minimizing the risk.

It’s not worthless at all.

This is your take on being rich and not at all related to what the article was about, what parent said and the point I was trying to make.

You took the question out of the context. Parent expressed that rich people would be happier by enjoying their wealth and changing and controlling what they want and how they enjoy it. That's the same thing 'poor' people can do - be happy by controlling their urges. For all your examples, as a poor guy:

- I can control to enjoy a scenery or a picnic from local park or nearby forest and

- I can control of being worried about the money and doing exactly what I feel like doing (considering it makes me trully happy)

As a rich guy:

- I'd not be sure why I should pedal and sit on a muddy grass instead of renting Hummer and going to some fine dining restaurant

- I'd not be sure should I be wasting my time having all this money when I could be treating myself with X and Y

Once again, what's the benefit if I need to take a mental and physical effort in order to be happy? Your last two paragraphs are the exact thing I am talking about, and can be applied to non-rich people as well.

Same. I had plenty of so-called life worthy experiences, and nothing would make recommend that lifestyle to someone.

To be happy or at least satisfied and content, it takes a lot of introspection and creativity on how to pursue what you really want, which is also rarely in a permanent state. This is often overlooked in favor of taking oversimplified life advices and time consuming setting of life goals

> There is a “mindfulness” angle. Instead of taking it always for granted, pay attention and make time enjoy your stuff.

Being satisfied with what you have is what “poor” people (people who can’t have everything) do in order to be happy. What’s the benefit of being rich then?

Would you apply that opinion to music as well? Yes, it is shorter and more practical type of media, but people tend to consume it until it "wears off". Other media consumption is much more demanding, complex and immersive and it is sometimes a drag to do it more than once, but it can be worth it if it made that deep impression on you.

I don't consume a lot of media for the same reason of wasting my time, plus trial and error of finding satisfying material takes additional quantity of time I don't have. With that I justify occasional media reconsumption as I can get equally satisfying emotional response from rewatched material.

Also, why would death play any role on how many different material one needs to consume?

Even tech people became like the old school folks complaining about charging for fixing a computer or the ol' "$500 for a website!?".

People get spoiled with so many free services and content provider around them and never consider that someone has to actually pay for it. Even tech people live in this ever-blooming software industry with above average paychecks, perks and benefits, but never think about who is really covering for that.

Software development is expensive, value it can provide is high, businesses provide SaaS to enable companies to attract them and pay for the value they use and get. There will always be attempts at price manipulations, but if software is used and business is profitable - the price is reasonable.

Time for an anecdote. I have recently witnessed a medium large company with a paranoid CEO, obsessed with business security, owning physical servers only for internal needs, hosting every single needed service, hoarding all the data. And just overnight they started switching these services to SaaS based one by one.

Why? Lack of on-premise and offline based software. Consequently, the innovation today is almost exclusive to SaaS based products. On-premise and offline client software is just becoming an optional expensive side-product of every SaaS product.

But it's a pretty logical step forward. As for the value, SaaS eliminates administration, installation, hardware, technical support and security hastle and majorly cuts the costs for a client company. As for the price, we always praise the always blooming software industry, successful startups, awesome jobs with so many perks and benefits, but someone has to pay for it. I think people don't consider that software is just getting very valuable and too expensive to make and it just makes more sense for companies to rent it then to own it forever.

Good point, I've answered assuming different context.

Not the guy you were replying to. Why are we assuming any of the impact would be a drive to live and should be of importance to anyone?

Isn't the reason why we live just steering through the unknown and finding what will happen next. Some do more and some do less to affect it, but people usually just wonder what will happen tommorow, what will be in a year, some what will be in 50 years.

We only want to do something impactful when we want to experience the consequences in the future.

I think the not-knowing is what drives us to live. The same thing why we await death so peacefully. It's really the gate we don't know anything about and we just await to sail in.

If we persume that life is completely based on the physical world, then yes consciousness is based on memory and you can somehow replicate the same consciousness which will continue with different experiences.

But if consciousness is based on what is percieved from physical world, then the consciousness can really take different forms, be parallel, be one single consciousness, and even not be dependant on time at all.

I think more interesting concept, than comparing death with being partially unconscious, is losing your complete memory. If consciousness is related on having past memories and experiences, how can we say a person can be conscious and function without having any single recollection of anything that ever happened.

I agree. The idea of relating unconsciousness with death is by making the assumption that physical world is what is driving life and consciousness. But since you are the conscious one just perceiving the physical world, physical world really doesn't need to be related to consciousness or doesn't even need to exist.

Since it is a question I don't think can possibly be ever known, all options may be completely possible.

Well, no matter how rational you are, it is still your conscious self that is perceiving the physical world and is just trying to makes sense of it. What happens to "you" after the death is really not related to understanding physical world, or at least not strictly dependant on the physical world. Which, at least for me, it means anything is more possible than just oblivion.

The not-knowing factor (of what happens in your life) is what drives most people to live, so why wouldn't give one a positive drive to actually live life and find out the same thing about death. You just don't skip high school to find out things what life in 40s will be like. :)

Edit: I hope I did't invoke illusion of being religious in any way. It's a purely philosophical way of questioning something you cannot possibly know.

Edit2: Also, other repliers (that obviously read more books than me) explain some really great theories

Yes, I did. Intentionally. If you forbid consumer GPUs for both sides, limit or cripple the gaming tech development in a sense it offers lower variety of products, you are going to see a lower demand for gaming in general. Thus, “saving the planet”.

It’s not something I propose, but giving hypothetical example of what would really be fair for both sides

Trust me, I'd take your problem seriously if only those cards would speed up growing up for you, guys.

I think I get what you are saying, but I think it’s less of a social problem, and more of a resource scarcity problem that humanity isn’t used to solving.

As much as people are aware of resources being limited on our planet, rarely anybody actively thinks that it’s already becoming a reality, yet it seems like extreme addiction to technology has only just started.

I am probably not that informed on who does what artificially and intentionally, but I still don’t see a point in justifying gaming usage over crypto usage. As far as destroying the planet argument goes, gamers could equally be limited to using a specifically designed devices for optimal gaming and entertainment purposes.

Apart from the ability to check the GPU health, GPU providers could easily implement some hardware “calculation counter” or design specific solution so resell value could be more easily evaluated.

Woah there. I don’t like the crypto culture and mindset as the next guy, but there are plenty of other options to preventing use case you presented. If systems aren’t closed enough already…

And as far as the gaming goes, I cannot see how playing games is more noble usage of gpu than crypto mining.

>he doesn't believe in vaccination to get antivaxer support before elections

Just, wow!

Essentially, the same thing here in Croatia. Our people have a wide spectre of ideologic views with a very different take on crisis, out of which currently very few trusts the government.

In the initial wave, government made very good results with keeping covid numbers down, and they were very widely accepted and respected. Even though there were some non-sense, people were glad just to know government reacting effitiently and strategically.

But the government lost all the trust now with promoting vaccination with some very odd restrictions and suprisingly stupid rhetoric, without honesty or explanations. There is probably much more truth to why everything just went down the drain, but I would say the main goal is to force out vaccination with no exception.

I do not respect or support our government ideologically nor due to their competence. The crisis would just be more managable if they had our trust right now, but they've lost it and I don't see it turning back. And I do not see how will they handle the crisis with so little support.

I may have sounded like I was proposing blind trust, rather than trust in return of transparency, honesty etc from leaders/governement. Because in essence I think we are talking about the same thing.

My point was about how well can a society work when there is mutual trust between leadership and followers, not about solving a problem efficiently. Although I did go off the subject with the anecdote.

What is your take on handling the Covid crisis in Europe?

>I think people underestimate social awareness

Not that I disagree with you, but I'd guess that social awareness is a product of having a trustful sources of information coming from trustworthy and capable leaders/government. It seems to me that handling of covid crisis is clearly correlated with how well people of a certain country do trust and respect their elected leaders.

Edit: It all reminds me of an excercise from some teamwork and leadership class, where there was a given logical problem to be solved in 45 minutes between teammates. And no matter how smart, proactive, arrogant or quiet members they had, all the teams failed to solve a problem. The issue was everybody participating in solving a problem which turned into 45 hour debate, rather than having a leader coordinating the path to solution.

It may be an oversimplifaction, but when you have a crisis which you don't know how to solve, you can at least try to handle it the best you can. Without trust in leadership, it will be chaotic.

Pretty much this. I know plenty of people who successfully stopped during quarantine (including me), however started the first day everything came back to normal.

Without drastically changing yourself, most regular smokers will not quit it for good that easily.

I find it more funny that many people quit smoking during the quarantine in my country, because they stayed in their comfy homes without stress. However, once everything got back to normal, their habits did too.

Of course, I am not laughing at their failure, but how these conclusions about smoking and quitting always seem very superficial. I don't doubt the same result globally after things change a bit. It always finds a way back for many, unfortunately.

Good for her. I'd compare quiting cigarettes to losing weight, since I have some experience in both.

Quitting is not a result, it is an effort you make through your life. It can be pretty easy for some, others need to focus a bit more. Build a strong determination to quit and have a positive outlook on life and your decision. The latter drastically affects how you experience cravings.

It becomes natural after a while, but if one can start smoking out of nowhere, starting this habit again is not less probable. Quitting is a continuous effort, but it is worth it.

> I don't know how people who are addicted to Facebook manage to use it so much without going mad

That's the thing with the addiction. Once you get used to it, it doesn't matter how bad it is.

Golf match should not be defined as a consecutive failures before a potential success, but more of a set of strategic actions before a potential success.

But yes, it is not defined what they took into account. e.g. Calling the same potential client hundred times in a row, can get you a restraining order only.

If qualitative input and output of an attempt would be taken in account, quantity of an attempt would not really be that significant.

If there were any conclusions made in the article, OP would probably make sure to dramatically acknowledge the subjective idea in the title.

I guess we can only wait for the title "Here is 10 reasons why you are a loser, Harry..."..

Remote work boosting is becoming a company shaming trend for not allowing workers to escape company rules, routines and procedures. Sure, remote work should be promoted, but in a way to give companies useful resources on how to analyze the neccessity and implement in their workflow.

Instead of writing arguments how remote work is just awesome, it would be more useful to have statistics on how many people are actually capable and accountable to work from home, and what do people really want out of their workspaces or by asking for remote work.

Not a full feature i3-like software, but I was amazed how it implements almost all features I like about i3.

https://www.workspacer.org/

It was mentioned in a FancyZones thread a few months ago.