"So it makes you feel fuller without adding calories, like GLP-1 drugs"
Nobody really knows how GLP-1 agonists work, but given the other effects (e.g. insulin stability, change in other addictive behaviours etc.) it's definitely not just this.
"One point is that the things that have increased in cost are more heavily regulated/government controlled than the items that haven't."
This is one of the central theories behind Kartik Gada's ATOM concept. He may come across as a bit of crank to some, but he has some interesting ideas.
"Inequality has been going up in the US for a very long time, which means a lot of people are not being rewarded as much as they should."
The second part of your sentence is not necessarily true. It might be true in some or even many cases, but it's certainly not something you can just assert & move on, as if it's a physical law.
I'm just tired of re-litigating this issue. Discuss with your favorite frontier model. Roughly, productivity has been outpacing pay since the mid 1970s, and I wrote about this in another comment here.
There's just so much confusion here. Some people like you don't get why a world where a handful of billionaires own everything is a bad idea. Madness. I think nothing less than another depression will get through to most.
If I lease tools that triple your productivity for the same cost as your wage, how much more do I pay you?
My point is increases in productivity can be caused by capital investment, not totally attributable to the worker. That money has to come from somewhere.
Ideally there's a fair balance. This isn't it but you can't look at the number you referenced blindly.
You're not thinking at a systems level. Check this out - https://data.worldhappiness.report/chart. The US is increasingly a miserable place to live in - in large part because of pay not keeping up with housing/school/medical/etc.
Correct systems-level answer to your question "how much do I pay you" is "as much as it takes to stabilize the US curve". Happiness correlates with financial security, which we won't get if the rich get richer from those capital investments then buy up all the housing.
Fun fact: Fit 2 lines on that data and you can extrapolate by ~2030 China will be a better place to live. That's really not that far off. Set a reminder on your phone.
I don't care if you are tired or not, it's not something you can just assert and move on.
Also, you know nothing at all of my opinion on whether "a handful of billionaires own everything" is a bad idea or not. All you know about me is I don't agree with you that rising inequality AUTOMATICALLY means some people haven't been rewarded as much as they "should", whatever that means. Reading comprehension, combined with not assuming others' POV, for the win.
Dude go figure it out yourself, it's not that hard. I remember discussing inequality with friends in 2014, and probably knew about it since Occupy Wall Street (2011). Or earlier. At this point if you still don't get it, with a billionaire in office, surely it's on you.
The system in the article works alongside gas and wood chips heating, so there are other options in place if the sand battery cannot be "charged".
FTA:
> The project will cut fossil-based emissions in the Vääksy district heating network by around 60% each year, by reducing natural gas use bu 80% and also decreasing wood chip consumption.
Not really, we're currently borderline. If OL3 goes down, and it's simultaneously cold over the nordics + northern germany and the baltics, and no wind, our industry will have to shutdown.
This would be an argument for widespread backup power, actually. If every residence had enough backup power to get through 24 hours, it would be far easier to deal with these relatively rare doldrums.
It's very difficult for most (not all) people to relate to others who are either significantly more or significantly less intelligent than them. So, for example (using IQ as a proxy), most people of average intelligence (~100IQ) would find it difficult to relate to those of ~65IQ, and equally difficult to find much in common with someone much more intelligent than them (140+IQ). Given power laws / bell-curve distribution, most people on the tails of intelligence distribution will spend most of their time surrounded by people they can't really relate to. This does not seem like a recipe for happiness.
Yes. A useful analogy is to imagine being an adult in a world populated only by children. Aside from the social alienation of it being hard to relate to others, there would be practical matters. The entertainment would all be tedious and predictable, all the rationalizations for bad behavior would be transparently self-interested. Enhanced capabilities for observation, prediction, and planning would make you a super-hero at problem-solving, but really, what does that get you except repetitive unfulfilling effort? Don't sweat the small stuff is good advice, but you couldn't actually ignore the futility. Don't focus on the negative is good advice, but in a world like that pessimism and realism are the same thing. Anyone would be miserable. The good-aligned person would likely withdraw or self-lobotomize. More cynical characters would harden their heart, seize power, and become king of all the blind babies and try to yoke them together and build a pyramid or something. (Yes, I've recently reread Understand by Ted Chiang, No a pyramid is not a plot point per se ;)
Thankfully the situation isn't actually this extreme, but I think what we're talking about is just a difference in degree and not a difference in kind. Seeing more clearly than others seems very uncomfortable at best, and frequently maladaptive and/or a recipe for derangement.
It is indeed not that extreme, but sometimes it feels pretty close. It is hard to find entertainment that isn't tedious and predictable. The public seems to eat up rationalizations for bad behavior which are obvious nonsense.
I'm happy at work because I'm surrounded by people smarter, more motivated, and more conscientious than I am. Outside of work, well, some days I dream that Anderson's Brain Wave would come true, the Earth would move out of some magical interstellar intelligence-suppressing field, and everyone's IQ would quintuple overnight.
yes and those children have money, power and jobs and you have to navigate that somehow without sparking their very irrational, very easily sparked ire.
I haven't found this to be true. For marriage, sure, pick someone close to you. But I've found that IQ is mostly irrelevant for friendship. Character and compatibility matter more than IQ.
I've noticed that many smart people have never learned how to enjoy spending time in mixed-IQ settings. I feel a bit sorry for smart people who were raised with smart parents and smart siblings and smart friends etc. I find their perspectives very limited.
>will spend most of their time surrounded by people they can't really relate to.
But society tends to bring together like-minded people e.g. in schooling, professional work, sports teams, art school, or whatever other community.
Also, I think social compatibility is less about matching IQs and more about matching senses of humor. If someone finds your jokes distasteful or downright bland, it's never going to work out. My friends are my friends because we laugh at the same things.
This doesn’t seem obviously true. There’s a bell curve of how knowledgeable people are with tech and somehow people I spend time with end up in the tail end. There’s a bell curve of how much they like board games and I end up spending a lot of time with people at the tail end as well. In general, the people you spend time with are not selected by a process which is even close to random.
This has always struck me as dumb, as until recently it was far cheaper to use your existing (gas-fired) hot water than to use a resistive element. However, with gas going out of fashion (and already hugely expensive in the Eastern states), and abundant solar PV, the calculus has changed.
The problem is that the first few litres of the water coming from the hot water pipe may be cold or warm. Therefore adding a resistive element is a better solution to guarantee a specific temperature.
Gas (especially just in time) still works well for water heating even if you can use heat pumps for everything else. No sure when that will flip, I assume it will eventually.
Gas is already outlawed for new builds in Victoria, despite vast gas resources in the Bass Strait. Presumably that's the direction other states are heading too.
It was a direction some states in the USA were heading before Trump, but now… anyways there will come an economic/technological point where electricity just makes more sense like it does for almost everything else. No need to legislate a transition when one will happen naturally, but we aren’t there yet.
I summarise YT videos with Gemini all the time. You can easily control the length and depth of the summary & get it to focus on particular things etc, before investing time in watching it, only to find out it's promotional, superficial, clickbait, or some combination of all 3.
Does Gemini really does a good job at detecting promotional video ? For example, that one video discussed in this post is one huge promotion for his friend product but it is actually built in a way that clearly appeals to nerdy audience. The video boasts the rigorous testing, provides scientific explanations, nerdy jokes, etc.
What Gemini says about that ?
reply