I think the argument about existing at the extremes probably applies here. If I am going to work for an unreliable, unknown, unstable company, I'd rather own a big chunk and have serious skin in the game and control of my destiny. If not, give me the most well funded, monopolized, cushy job possible where I can accept that my agency is a small price to pay for very high standard of living. Applies to apartments too (live in a giant building downtown, for the benefits, or in the middle of nowhere, but not in the suburbs where you are lose-lose).
It depends. Are you dealing with a "rational" actor? Are you dealing in the objective or the subjective?
If you are dealing with someone nominally rational on a subject of some objectivity, the question is really how do you interpret the science and how it that enforced or detracted from by your lived experience. That doesn't invalidate the science, but it helps with perspective.
If you are dealing with an irrational actor but an objective issue, you can throw the science in their face but that is generally not a good way to approach it. Humans respond defensively as a reflex. If someone knew the "one truth" to the world, I would reflexively and cynically respond that they probably don't, and counter-argue. I might investigate the alternatives though. I think the goal here is just convince them to do more seeking. And if they are unwilling to do that and to change to the objective side of things, they aren't worth the time (period).
If you are dealing in the subjective, the same things tend to apply but be more careful. You are dealing in the realm of lived experience, espoused values and old wisdom. Old wisdom tends to be better than new wisdom, unless the nature of the problem is new, and lived experience tends to always be more compelling to you than to others around you.
Mostly, you are wasting time trying to change minds. Try to point people in the direction where they can learn for themselves, no one wants to be taught, they want to be shown, and sometimes they are more open if you validate their perspective first (not sarcastically, truly validate it, and then proceed to attack the central argument).
This is clearly (part of?) the bubble bursting. Now the applications with real utility for larger groups of people will start to emerge (or not) from the wreckage.
This article is very high level, but I have been giving this some thought. Some aspects of masculinity can be toxic to the people around the man, but those aspects also tend to be something that was once (and no longer is) evolutionarily preferable. An example might be a man who has casual sex with lots of women. If there is one thing those men tend not to do, it's reproduce successfully. This is pretty ironic, because through most of history this may have been a singular factor affecting the extend of one's reproductive success. Toxic masculinity then might be something that used to have reproductive utility, doesn't anymore, but is perpetuated mainly by men and for men. It's mostly men that are impressed by hookups that other men have. No one is nearly as "impressed" when you actually have a child and raise them to be successful, which is strange, because that is the essence of reproductive. Whatever men do that is good for reproduction in our actual environment (make big bucks in tech being an example of something that has no precedent in evolution) could be considered masculine. Whatever men do, to impress other men, that is harmful to the people around them and yet not useful for reproduction (lots of casual sex while using birth control) could be considered toxic (?). Otherwise, no, whatever works isn't toxic.
This probably isn't what you are looking for, but my wife and I have a three month old so I have some very recent experience with this stage and this is what we have learned:
* I read maybe two parenting for Dads books. I do not regret not reading more, they were helpful but marginally so, mostly during pregnancy. Maybe I could have read none and been fine. I probably won't invest a lot of time in parenting books moving forward.
* I got the most value reading generic child development books. Parenting a baby is really just care + development. Figuring out care takes a few weeks (diapers, feeding, etc.) and then it's all about development from then on. Parenting comes much later, plenty of time to read about it.
* The first few years of life are the most important for development by far. You could argue (I mean, the science does) that over half the impact you can have on the developmental outcome of your child happens in the first two years of life. And even then, it's somewhat random.
* On that basis, we take development activities very seriously at this stage, and worry less about parenting in future, if only because it's impact is less significant long-term and we have plenty of time to read if we want. I worry about facilitating development, they are going to be who they are going to be when they grow up.
* I found having parenting peers to be very useful but it's hyper age-based. Our best friend had a child within the same month so we tend to talk to them a lot more than others as a result. Even people with babies at six months are in their own world of problems and priorities.
* Once you figure out care and where you are development wise, the biggest problem for the first six months or so (according to others around us) is sleep. Not much can be done either. This has been our experience. Once you're done with the shock, the obligation, you just have this joyful sleepless daze phase.
* The science on parenting (development + care) has changed materially (for the better) since our parents were parenting. Their advise can be as bad as it is good, we have found Google Scholar 10x more useful than listening to in-laws and our in-laws are arguably wise about parenting (just so out of date).
Certainly power seems to be a corrupting force in almost all cases, I would just argue that to a certain extent, what we perceive as good (a disregard for the status quo) when small is endearing and even admirable, but once those rebels take over the world we want them to magically fall in line. It's obviously a cultural immune system of some kind.
This is the right question to be asking. So many good things are only good at the right scale. If Google or Amazon were not two of the most valuable companies on earth and instead say, even a tenth as large, people would have an endearing trust in the way their whimsical, easy to use products make their life better. Now we view them as omnipotent gods to rebel, almost on principal. Micro socialism (sharing resources in a family for example) is basically the default if not the only model: the concept of "keeping score" is seen as pathological in relationships at the family unit scale, but standard and even necessary the larger the group of people sharing (specialisation and trade). Democracy is a great example too: there are less than one representatives per million people in the US. Early on it was a fraction of this, and therefore much easier to meet their needs. Medicine is can range from a useless waste of money to deadly and in the middle be extremely useful, even within the same order of magnitude. Society and social systems are not immune to these effects.
In these parts, doing things for practical reasons is itself a status symbol. It would be more contrarian to say you own the most expensive car you can lease to get attention.
Liberals can't handle many areas of science, including but not limited to: evolutionary psychology, any study involving standardized testing or intelligence, vaccines (in certain circles), some important parts of genetics and economics, the sociological effectiveness of interventionism, military technology. In most cases, smart liberals and smart conservatives are both right (in the areas they value) and dumb liberals and dumb conservatives are both wrong.
Yes, the spread would be better, but banks don't do it unless you have several years of high cash flow and positive on-paper income. Even if the owner is deliberately trying to offload the income into another corporation, they can't figure it out and say the income statement looks bad. Banks don't even understand small businesses at this point.
Most people I know in Toronto, naturally those in tech, see Sidewalk Labs as being a good thing. It is unfortunate that there is a group of anti-progress people fighting it. Good way to end up like Europe (slow growth, smart people leave). This attitude and 90%+ of the comp sci PhDs leaving the country are not uncorrelated.
It doesn't discourage loans. Fast growing small companies are one of the only constituents who can justify higher interest rates. Now giant companies and individuals going on vacation get cheap credit but small businesses mostly can't get any.
We experience this and it is pretty strange. We had a child by choice at 24. Got pregnant first try, the first month after our wedding. Both finished our levels of education on time or early. We live near our parents (in a rich coastal city) though, unlike those who move elsewhere. We're not religious, more coastal liberal.
Our "peers" tend to be in their early to mid thirties, at a similar stage of growing their family. Our age peers are either 1. Generally on a good path, living in a nice place, full time with benefits, finished a degree or 2. Having kids, have no money, didn't finish any school, live at home or in a really cheap / sketchy area.
The dichotomy is very pronounced. The people our age who are in the "success" bucket seem confused about choosing to have kids, so we hang out with people like that but who are ten years older. This is pretty weird, and we can't really form close friendships (or haven't figured out how to yet).
The people in our age bracket with kids seem to have experienced their entire 20s more or less by accident, and it is hard to find things to talk about. Mostly they seem to struggle with money, with their relationships, with their jobs and have very different priorities.
This statement is delusional in the context of Google offering a censored search product. People in China who mind will leave China, most don't mind according to Confucianism values, this policy is not going to change because nerds in North America disagree with it, and neither is Google.
I am all for basic income, but as an Ontario resident, this was not basic income. This was an opportunity to give 4k people within a very specific demographic (mainly voters for the incumbent party = the working poor) free money and see what happens. Without giving it to those at the real bottom (jobless) or those in other brackets, it's not very scientific in terms of piloting basic income. The new party basically ran on "roll back all the damage and overspending the prior party put in place, then figure out how to do it properly" which if you live here isn't the worst deal necessarily. We are in somewhat of a Make Ontario Great Again situation now though, with the former party that put this in place being like a way, way less competent version of the Obama democrats. Not we have an (arguably) more competent version of the Trump republicans in place. Suffice to say Toronto is pretty unhappy, but the rest of the province is mostly happy about it.
The extent to which people eat in a way poorly aligned to their genetic make up, and that if fixed they feel much, much better, is hard to overstate. If you were genetically tooled to eat nothing but fatty fish in the tundra, this may work great. And eating bread if you aren't from the breadbasket may not be. Even vegetables tend to be regional, and many can be pro inflammatory in certain people (ie. Nightshades), which leads to malabsorption and therefore a lack of nutritional value in practice. Chances are eating to your genetics beats eating any one particular way. People just like the idea of one diet to rule them all. The trade off with meat seems to mostly involve shorter lifespan due to eating more calories and burning through telomeres. If someone offered much better mental health for your entire life and it takes five years off your life expectancy, you might do it, and that's mostly what's at stake here.
The search in other parts of the world is already distorted or full on censored across various "morally acceptable bounds". China just happens to have different morality. This is more akin to McDonalds having a different menu everywhere than it is akin to Orwellian thought policing or that being a universal wrong. The morality is different and ethical is subjective. If you don't like it, don't use it, but to say this is some kind of outright evil imposed by the government is to ignore that the majority of Chinese support Confucian morality and there is little concept of Western style privacy. Why should China abide by Google employees morality? That is the bigger question to me. Why should Google abide by their employees morality either?
Many millennials are economically useless, so it's natural to think that an ego-protecting being would externalize that and ask (beg? steal?) resources from others. Socialism is better the smaller the the group is. At the state level? Always a disaster. Intergroup trade is the only way to function between. Look at the "socialist" (not really) countries like China, where they do capitalism and "trade between" better than almost anyone. Share among small groups, trade between big ones, don't overspend, fund social programs with earnings on capital (Norway) rather than cash flow from productive people (most other places).
This is kind of a strange comment. I don't think a lot of HN folks have worked in last mile logistics, but $2/package is average to above average. Amazon typically pays around $1.50 for Prime packages and I would say it isn't just the upper middle class that is buying from Amazon at this point. If people don't pay for shipping, there will be a human cost. If people are willing to pay for some aspect of value-add (actually coming to your door, caring about retry attempts, caring about lost packages, caring about how well the people involved are treated) this would change fast. Anyone who tries to go slower than peak speed or do it ethically gets crushed by someone doing it faster or in a shadier way, because people refuse to pay for shipping.
The challenge for capital is that growth is very hard to find. Inflation is >2% while real returns on capital, even risk capital, are around 5%. Is it really worth going to zero investing in equities for a net return of 3%? Where is capital to go to get even the amount of returns needed to sustain it (NIRP bonds, etc.). Growth is the bottleneck, hence the manic interest in start-ups. Buybacks aren't a bad thing, but it is strange that companies like Apple can't find any good places to invest. People should save money and companies should spend it, most of the time we are seeing the opposite.
I am learning this lesson the hard way with dynamically typed languages on the server. If the documentation and database have to be statically typed, you should really use types in the code. So dynamically typed languages on the server is impossible (?).
That circumcision is still practice is insane. What is the benefit of all of the aggressive moralizing that goes on towards all kinds gender and sex causes at this point, and yet first world genital mutilation of boys gets almost no attention while causing 14% of male SIDS. Do not care about religious freedoms at that point.
In case anyone is depressed and reads this, I'll add an anecdote that isn't as heavy as the article. When I was depressed, I would wake up at 4am every night and not be able to fall back asleep. So I'd get up for a few hours, work, then go back to bed for a sleep cycle before actual work. Over the course of a few months of recovering, this completed stopped. Now I can tell how depressed I am by how many times a week this happens, but generally only every few weeks compared to every day no exceptions. For me, they are very closely related.
The science here is pretty clear that remote workers outperform open office workers. With the exception of winner-take-all monopolies and associated "weird" aspects of how they operate, it seems like a services business is much, much better off allowing remote workers from anywhere in a similar timezone / language than they are having an office.
Exactly. It's win-win-win. Anonymous genetic data is amazingly useful for various kids of biotech applications. The more people who have it and can work on it, the better. 23andMe is a great platform for collection and providing useful insights to consumers, but the big potential is having millions of people's genetic data for drugs and science. Why would this make you wary? Use a fake name if your concern is PII.
You have to own enough of the company to control your destiny. Which means if it fails, it's at least partially your fault. Almost no one but you cares if your business fails in practice. So yes that is not a great trait. I'd argue most assets are overvalued right now, but insider trading your own skills and connections can't be. No one can tell you the answer to this either.