glass3

The article feels very coherent to the point that I want to follow its advice. But will it work?

Status, like money and power, is a form of capital. If we can learn to tolerate our feelings of “not-enoughness,” we can then use status in service of what we care about, rather than being addicted to it as an end in itself.

If we can tolerate 'not-enoughness', what would be there that needs change? As a society, don't we have to tolerate addiction because that's the loop that drives our progress?

Casey Rosengren is a founder and executive coach based in New York. If you’d like to learn more about ACT and values-oriented coaching, drop him a note.

'founder' - Does he use the title 'in service' or is he still trapped in the status game? In the latter case, is his advice still valid?

Have you seen bioemerl's comment about television? The one who controls the weights in TikTok's selection algorithm determines what people are going to believe.

Tether has the same problem. What happens to Binance's Tether coins if Tether's bank collapses?

There are two kinds of arthritis and the age-related one shouldn't be linked with food.

Disney and Apple are close. Does this mean that there is not much to be expected from Apple's VR headset launch this year?

If you haven't seen it:

consumer451 3 months ago | next [–]

I was diagnosed with arthritis at a very young age. [...]

One day I learned about modifying my diet to avoid inflammation. I greatly limited, but did not entirely eliminate, tomatoes and potatoes in my diet.

[...]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34163231

Hopefully Binance still has all the money

How can they? SVB has made it clear that it is very difficult to maintain value. If Binance has invested all their money in securities, it's not unlikely that their investments have gone done down with the rising of the interest rates.

If they keep all money in regular banking accounts, they may still have it. But they are exposed to the risk that their bank or their banks become insolvent.

The markets don't work if delivering a child leads to bankruptcy. Either people pay for unnecessary procedures or those procedures cost too much.

In which way will they make it different from the Meta headsets? The Apple branding won't be enough to turn an average headset into a successful product.

My guess would be that their headset is just a set of goggles that requires an iPhone for computation. Then, they can sell them for $300 or even $150.

The article suggests that VR is a tool for long-distance relationships. For $300, that could become possible.

Does it allow me to collaborate on notes with others?

Google will become good again. With TikTok threatening Youtube and ChatGPT threatening search, long-term success decisions become relevant again.

Yes. That would be doing it wrong for mass adoption. Doing it right means that users don't have to care about the protocol.

But there still has to be infrastructure. Instead of reinventing the wheel, a new social network could be built on the Mastodon foundation. There would already be users and there would be an exit strategy for power users if the new network fails. Right now, it's not worth investing time in a new network because the social graph doesn't survive the end of the network. With Mastodon, it would be easy to migrate to a new service.

Where is the fundamental limit? It's a protocol. Somebody could create an instance that does everything right for mass adoption.

Regarding you sidetrack:

When you swap money for products, you don't need time. If the economy shifts to visibility and attention, instant transactions are not possible anymore. Whatever people produce, somebody needs time to consume it. So all the productivity gains will be used to create more audience.

They basically manufacture their own luck

VC does not only offer money but also connections. Even more so does YC and their startup school. If that's not enough, a unicorn is waiting to combine kickstarter.com and a social network to allow people to monetize their connections.

The limiting factor is the willingness to give up the comfort of a 9-5 job. In a world of working spouses, one partner can always risk their career, especially when the children have grown up a bit.

Our early analysis of performance data suggests that engineers who either joined Meta in-person and then transferred to remote or remained in-person performed better on average than people who joined remotely.

If their performance data is reliable, why does Meta need several rounds of layoffs? The foundation of their analysis is weak.

Consumers make the world worse, too. The housing bubble exists because useful idiots are willing to pay beyond reasonable market value, destroying prices for everybody.

If you want to get rid of that part of your brain, check my profile and fill out the form on my homepage ...

Apart from the lack of personal fulfillment, isn't it good for society, and thus not such a bad job, that fools are parted from their money? After all, consumers decide what our society does. If a consumer is not able to recognize a scam, how can society trust them to make meaningful decisions? A hustle guru will spend their money on fast cars and thus at least support state of the art engineering.

AI moderators don't have to be personal. It would be enough to tag comments as constructive, lulz and flame and let users decide which type they want, or to which degree they want it. The technology of spam-detecting Markov chains should be enough since the users can easily correct the classification.

Since the feature is possible but not used, question remains why users don't need it.

Those employees work at a company that treats its users like sheep. How can they expect to be treated differently?

In which context would somebody try to reverse a hash? That would be like arbitrarily enhancing a bad-resolution image to see something that cannot be seen.

Hash collision should always be about finding matching content for a hash.

Only 15% of postdocs end up being tenure-track faculty.

It's strange that the most intelligent people don't overcome that limit. There are billions of people on earth who could benefit from education to become more productive. A share of that gain could pay for many more 'tenure-tracks', they just wouldn't be called like that.

Does somebody know why the manure is not concentrated and shipped to places that need fertilizers, like guano?

So, don't settle on the planet but build something like floating airships?

Can't other platforms use https://www.darlinghq.org/ to run that MacOS application on Linux?

Only the New Territories were leased.

The colony faced an uncertain future as the end of the New Territories lease approached, and Governor Murray MacLehose raised the question of Hong Kong's status with Deng Xiaoping in 1979.[84] Diplomatic negotiations with China resulted in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which the United Kingdom agreed to transfer the colony in 1997 and China would guarantee Hong Kong's economic and political systems for 50 years after the transfer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong

For blogs, there is https://ooh.directory/

Like high frequency trading, it's also valuable because things that are important to those in power are protected.

The problem is, we are just smart enough as a group to mess things up really efficiently for short term benefits (within two generations), but we're not smart enough to act as though we're planning for 5-10 generations into the future.

We could be smart enough. All the past cultures with monuments were building them to last.

Doing mathematics means coming up with ways of thinking about things, which is pretty much the same as coming up with ways of talking about things.

Which is very close to programming and creating AI.

At a time when it seems that every undergraduate is majoring in computer science, data science, or business, I still come across students from across the United States that are double-majoring in mathematics and philosophy.

In context of the 'waste of time' part in paragraph 2, isn't computer science the right choice if neither mathematicians nor philosophers talk about the things that matter?