shardinator

You need goals to know which habits to develop, and habits so you achieve the goals. It’s not one or the other, you need both.

And same but differently I doubt a king of today eats as well as a peasant of a thousand years ago - aside from famine times. Today we all eat just a few plant and (for most) animal species. This is bad for the gut microbiome, health and our enjoyment of life in general - and its prob true for even the most wealthy.

I think you might love rock climbing, esp bouldering. It’s hard on the body, but your mind is engaged like a game of chess - to be fair more like solving set chess problems, it’s so satisfying when you figure one out.

Maybe something similar to a triple store.

Yep, same reason Private Ryan was saved (in the movie).

Yes fair enough, good points.

Nope, it's the other way around. Because they can't protect the recipe there are no profits to be made and therefore no incentive to run trials. It get's worse. If a traditional recipe works better, doctors can't prescribe that because it's 'untested' and in the end we get people paying more for inferior products.

Perhaps they should be free to do as they choose, but make what they are doing very explicit. In the early days Google heavily promoted the idea that their rankings were independent and free of commercial biases, and we now implicitly assume that's true. If that's not the case, then perhaps we enforce explicitness about that - somehow.

Not science != not true

Interesting, I'm the other way around, I've defaulted to classes and then found that Ids would be more appropriate in many cases.

My simple rule for id vs class (as a non-expert) is if you say 'this is the x' e.g. 'this is the footer/header/navigation-panel' then it's an Id, if you would say 'this is a y' e.g. 'this the a product/list-item/image' then it's a class.

I wouldn't try to build A startup.

Instead I'd focus on being a 'special forces team' for people who have a good idea and some product &/or traction but need more people with your skill sets and access to capital.

You would then be essentially super hands-on investors, who could add significant value (although that really depends on you - you could also be super disruptive).

Over time you'd pick up a portfolio of companies that you've worked in and on, then exited and allow the initial team and new members you brought in to flourish.

While you rinse and repeat and slowly build network effects and improved learnings along the way.

Finder app that actually finds stuff

Or just say 20% of your time you can do what you want. Seems like a solved problem to me.

well I guess uber for home cleaning = HomeJoy failed. But feel free to disagree.

She does however, protect the swans. Not sure where I'm going with this #beer

I think you know there's a bubble when people tell you about the stock picks (amateurs and professionals), and when you quiz them about why the bought, they give you irrational arguments i.e. things unrelated to future cash flow. The reasoning for buying current tech companies may be forward looking or optimistic, but it's not irrational.

>> How can we have both unity and diversity?

I've always seen things as having a 'level of abstraction'. At one level of abstraction things can have unity, but as you 'zoom in' and change the level of abstraction you'll see the differences and have diversity.

From a distance stars and snowflakes all look the same, but not on closer inspection. Similarly in a foreign country, at first people will all seem the same, but as you spend more time there you level of abstraction changes and you start to see greater diversity.

Since you can zoom in/out infinitely there's no correct level of abstraction to start from or accept as a default, therefore things have great unity and diversity, simultaneously.

Funny, I read the comment as meaning "I get plenty of social deference, and any more would be just be annoying".

>> Everything you say applies just as well to all of Western Mediterranean Europe.

The language thing sure does. But the only time in ancient history Western Mediterranean Europe has been part of a single state was during the Roman period. the rest of the time they evolved separately and uniquely. In contrast each part of modern India has been politically linked to the other parts multiple times through history resulting in a common culture but with some obvious diversity. E.g. Indian festivals are largely common throughout the country, a marker of commonality stretching back through history.

>> That Columbus ill-advisedly thought of India as a monolithic entity is no marker of anything.

He said nothing about it being monolithic, just that there was a place called India, and it was worth a visit.

Your original comment was "there was no 'India' ...".

There has been an India through most of history. But of course the borders of the modern state were drawn relatively recently. These are two different things.

If you said it's not 'strictly true for India', you'd be correct, but when you say it's 'far from true' then not so much. India has two ancient languages Tamil and Sanskrit and modern languages are derived from these (but I am def not an expert). The modern forms are considered different languages, but they are quite close to each other, easy to learn one from the other e.g.the grammar is the same and words are usually just different pronunciations/intonations of a common root. It's easy to see that in the ancient past they would have had more similarity.

The original point was "there really was no 'India' before the British cobbled one together". If so, then where was Columbus trying to go? Of course there was 'an India', it just wasn't structured like a modern nation state, which is true for every other modern country as well.

India was like Greece, China like Rome. China had central control while India had independent states that didn't control each other politically but were unified in terms culture, communication, roads, infrastructure and importantly commerce.

Today it wouldn't make sense to say "there really was no 'Greece'". Same for India.

Sorry for slow reply. That is very interesting, I never knew that but I guess it makes perfect sense. What I was/am thinking of is a group that is definitely military, but the goal is governance with the option of lethal force any time the need arises - with or without assistance from external units. If it existed I would have signed up years ago.

Yes absolutely. I think bringing people from some military units and then the Peace Corps, USAID etc. together would be a way to get it happening quickly.

Agreed there's a trend in that direction, but as you say not quite there yet. What I imagine is a unit with the goal of helping civilians as a first priority, but with the full capability to defend themselves and the people they're helping. Similar to the Special Forces but with the priorities reversed.

I totally agree with this. I also think in a large number of conflict situations, the real issue is bootstrapping governance rather than fighting an adversary. Though military protection/action is required due the hostile environment.

Having a group trained and equipped to specifically fight asymmetric warfare is the way to go. They should also be able to help train police, ambulance etc. get basic services working and monitor + prosecute corruption in the regime that's been installed.

What's really funny. I was kind of drunk when I wrote that comment. Re-read it thinking, "that sounds familiar". G'night everyone.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Seems you're just doing a little 'reductio ad absurdum'. Sigh ...

"No problem", replied Ford with a certain 'snap' in his tone. "Make it any color you like. As long as it's black".

Brawndo's got electrolytes ...

Yin yoga is a very slow stretching technique. If I can't sleep I Google "yin yoga for sleep" or "yoga for sleep" or some similar combination and do one of the 30 min vids. I find not only do I fall asleep quickly, but I need less sleep and wake up more refreshed and positive.