schtitt

The ReMarkable has, by some black magic, managed to reduce the latency by quite a lot compared to, say, a Kindle.

I honestly think rating people in a service like this will make it feel even more artifical and 'disconnected'. Coolness is not a one-dimensional scale, and what is interesting to you might not be interesting to the next person. Such a system would just make some people try to optimize their score, i. e. not really caring about the relation in itself.

I know this is a popular way to phrase it, but opponents of gay marriage are not saying gays shouldn't have the same rights as other people. Not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is a universal law, it doesn't just apply to gay people. It does only affect them though, but that is not the same,especially when people are using this argument (as you do) to insinuate that people opposing gay marriage think gay people are lesser beings or something like that.

Hm yeah, except without government regulation there would be no copyright in the first place..

I remember reading a question about this somewhere, where it was stated that because of the massive turbulence inside a vacuum, there was very little chance of a spider surviving something like that!

So I just read through your [2].

The first part seemed good and reasonable, though towards the end (from day 10 onwards) I felt like the guy was kind of just trying to come up with stuff to excite the reader, and which in my mind cluttered the simplicity of the rest, i.e. the 3 things a week, 3 things a day, hotspots, monday vision and friday reflection (+ dump your brain, but everyone says that).

Would you mind giving a more concrete telling of how you have implemented this system in your life and which parts of this 30 days-thing you find to be indispensable and which are just fluff?

Yup, you're right. It does add something for sure. I guess the further away a show/movie strays from common tropes the more important is the value of not knowing what will happen.

Hm, I disagree. Usually when you read a book/watch a movie, you do have a pretty good idea who will survive. I mean, even in the original trilogy, most people knew how things would go down since the books were well known. I would say more interesting is how it goes down, and you can still have tension even if you know the final outcome. Same thing with folk tales: you know the hero is going to win, but it is still enjoyable to hear the tale told.

Did you mean the opposite here or do you really get the impression that info with grammar mistakes is more valuable?

Yeah, to call the theory of an invented Jesus 'simpler' is quite a stretch, since you then would have to explain both the rise of Christianity, the gospel writings, and the records of Josephus the Jewish historian who did write about a prophet named Jesus. Simpler would in this case assuming there did indeed exist such a man.

When I read this I though a violent struggle didn't happen but that he wanted to imply that it did. The reason is that it reminds me of similar techniques that my more drama-loving acquaintances use,and based on the way this is written, this guy has a flair for drama. My guess is that something happened where the author got scared and as a side effect hurt himself. Meaning he can garner sympathy and still not technically lie about what happened, but make you fill in the blanks with stuff that didn't happen. I would love to stand corrected on this, though.

If you could help me and 25% of everyone [1] figure out that underlying problem, we would be super grateful!

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/articles/sleepd...

It's like the code version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic !

Curious about the implied link between social-ness and creativity.. care to expound? I can think of several individuals who are highly creative but who prefer being alone.

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, and for bringing to my attention the concept of an ornamental hermit - that's today's 'huh' moment!

Just for the record, it sounds like I am in quite the same situation as yourself (introvert but with acquired social skills) so it's not all that bad, and part of my lament is actually for those who have less of a disposition for this than myself.

But from time to time there will be people who have more developed social skills but less developed 'deep knowledge' about what they're doing than myself, and seeing that the world in general recognizes them more than me (or people even more able than me) for doing things that I do better smarts. (Especially when they're really dickheads in disguise ;) )

A 'solution' would be to go even more all in to be even better socially, but, like you, it costs me energy to do so, and it's hard not to feel like other people for whom this is a natural skill will always have the advantage here. But it's even more - it's a matter of principle. I don't want to prostitute myself to get recognition, to put it bluntly.

And I guess that leads to the conclusion that I should then abandon the desire for recognition, since I'm not willing to accept the alternative. Which I am trying, I guess, but which is quite hard, and which leads me to such questions as the one that started this thread..

Again, thanks for giving your thoughts, it's good to get the truth straight now and then!

I think much of the original point still applies: Should I put mental resources into being perceived as 'not boring' or should I disregard all that and focus on doing what I do well? Maybe I catch a lucky break and somehow just have an interesting personality without having to do much, but then again, maybe not.

Recognition of one's work is a lot of the time a function of how 'not boring' you are, as well. Thus, if you do excellent work but don't advertise it, the next promotion will very likely not go to you.

This is, IMO, an inherent weakness in how humans perceive the world and I'm not looking for a fix, just a way to cope with it, since the injustice of it all sometimes really gets me down.

In a given person's life, there might be plenty of reasons why they can't be one or the other, but that's just me being a pedant.

However, as I see it you can choose to invest time and resources into being 'useful' or 'interesting', but the one will usually divert said time and resources away from the other. E.g. you can do deep science, and help the scientific progress of humankind, or you can be 'interesting' like Nye or Tyson.

What really gets be is how fame, or 'interestingness' at times cloud our judgment so that the individuals who focus on that path are more recognized (often for much less actual useful work) than the sticklers who are actually doing most of the useful work.

Have you found any good ways to mentally deal with this arguably sucky part of human nature, assuming you belong to the part of humanity that would rather be useful than interesting? For me it's a daily source of consternation and I would like to develop a more healthy way of dealing with it.

This as in Bach, or this specific piece?

I think the core of the issue here is that at some point, the nuisance outweighs the risk. How long will this ban be in place? Until the terrorists forget how to make laptop bombs? In the meantime, how many hours of productive work is being lost?

To put it another way, let's say the US got intelligence that terrorists now are able to make bombs out of, say, shoes. Should everyone be forced to remove their shoes before boarding? A silly and contrived example, to be sure, but it is meant to illustrate a point: Where do we draw the line between safety and inconvenience?

> I've always thought there is no such thing as the wrong weather, just the wrong clothes ;)

So you're saying you're Norwegian?

I think it's more about being 'mentally prepared'. A lot of 'successful' people are harping on this thought that as long as you work hard you can accomplish something similar to what they have, which might trick a lot of people into actually believing this, not taking into account the substantial contribution 'luck' has.

In many ways, this train of thought is also abused by those who have already made it. Help the poor? Why, they're not working hard enough! Thus, helping everyone be aware of this could conceivably help us make better social policies.

You all bring up good points, and I agree that the usage was imprecise and/or wrong, though the original comment did, IMO, contain enough information that you should be able to deduce with a significant probability (in the Bayesian sense) whether or not I am, indeed, the great French historian Henry Rousso!

No, they're not different. Every time I am visiting the states I have to go through the extra process of interviewing (due to things that happened a long time ago), and every time I am struck by how it seems like they're actively attempting to dehumanize the persons who are there. The border control is actually the #1 reason I am considering never visiting again. Though, as the original author, I love the US, so it's difficult.