Hydropower is the only true renewable green energy that we have. It's ironic that dam removal is so popular with people who claim to care about green energy and the environment.
My pet theory is that everyone has ADD/ADHD at some level, particularly when tasked with something they do not like to do or want to do, and that the rise in ADD/ADHD is worsened by short-form content because it further reduces attention span.
I don't think it's a real disorder, nor do I think giving people amphetamine is a great idea.
> with something they do not like to do or want to do
That's not a great distinction. The real issue is when it affects things you like and want to do. We know which areas of the brain change over time with ADHD and that it's inheritable. We know multiple biomarkers correlating with the symptoms. The "not a real disorder" takes at this point are BS.
Tattoos are certainly something where you have to be extra careful because of the potential health effects of bad needles or bad ink. And it's difficult to vet these things.
Aesthetically it's a matter of taste, but I've certainly seen tattoos where I thought they improved the person's appearance. Though Sturgeon's law does apply.
> This is subjective. "Health" here might be taken to include mental health, in which case there could be many positive benefits.
100% this. I have a tattoo on my forearm that just makes me happy to look at. It is nearly always partially in my vision while working due to its location. If I am having a bad day I can just look at it and smile. It reflects an important part of me.
The mental health benefit of that, has been incredibly noticeable in my day to day.
Could I have done something similar with a picture on my phone or something? Sure. But this clearly has a huge impact on my mental health so why not get it tattooed. Also my 5th tattoo so it wasn't a crazy idea for me.
You really must consume your own domestic propaganda for maximum effectiveness, it's more targeted at you and your culture, customs, beliefs, biases, etc
Someone found it intellectually interesting. You are, of course, free to disagree.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
ChatGPT is the most impressive tech I've used in years, but it is clearly limited by whatever constraints someone from The Woke Police / Thought Taliban shackled it with. Try to perform completely reasonable requests for information on subjects that are vaguely questioning orthodoxy or The Narrative and it starts repeating itself with patronizing puritanism as if you're listening to a generic politician repeat their memorized lines. I had read about instances of this but had never ran into it directly myself until a guest had a completely reasonable question about 'climate change' and we chose to ask ChatGPT for an explanation, and the responses were nonscientific and instead sounded like they were coming directly from a political action group.
Not sure why you put climate change in quotes, but it would be helpful to provide the prompt and the response. Without doing so and by using "The Woke Police" and "Thought Taliban", you, too, sound like you are coming directly from a political action group.
"climate change" was the topic, if the topic were "beanbag chairs" or "health problems related to saturated fats" I would have done the same.
BTW if you have a preferred name for those who are embedding into business and institutions to enforce their beliefs, politics, morality, opinions, and generally limiting knowledge and discourse, I would be happy to use that instead, but I think most people are familiar with the terms "woke" and "Taliban".
The caste/nobility system, harems, prima nocta, and a high immigration bar are all variations of this theme.
These days elite universities, Tinder, Twitter, and the general Internet are pushing out the tails of humanity further. Expect more outliers as time marches on.
If universal basic income is adopted, expect more negative outliers, as the barriers to entry to human reproduction plummets, and the lure to collect the child’s paycheck proves hard to resist.
The problem with attempting to apply this to humans is that humans take an extraordinary amount of time to develop into their prime (~30 years each gen). You might at most get 2 generations of data if you began to run this experiment in your early 20s.
The only case I am aware of is that of the "Potsdam Giants" [1]. Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia was so obsessed with tall men he created a regiment of them, and pushed these soldiers to marry tall women. It apparently worked in producing even taller offspring.
As for entrepreneurship, I don't think there's a gene that encodes that :). Although heredity isn't only genetic.
I'd love to see if there's been a study on this, but anecdotally it seems a high number of PhDs are married to other PhDs, doctors to other doctors, attorneys to other attorneys.
My take is for the most part of the grind of these types of professions is more relatable and schedules are easier to align, but it probably also aligns on social cache/prestige to some degree.
Yeah but part of that is just sharing the same social space. It's pretty common for people to meet at work or at school and then start dating and eventually marry. For large portions of your life, especially in law and medicine, school dominates your life and virtually all your friends and potential mates come from that pool. Same for work or professional life. Have you ever hooked up with a coworker or classmate? Many people have. Doesn't matter the profession. It's less common for professions that are not as gender balanced, of course, but it still happens.
The latter would be preferred by most, and is most aligned with individualism, but sadly that is not where we are as a society. There are an entire class of people who believe they know what is best for you, about nearly every subject matter, and wish to limit all aspects of technology, life, politics, etc, to suit their superior beliefs.
Hardly surprising. When childhood mortality is high people grow up seeing their siblings and friends die as a common thing, and understand it could just as easily be them. With low expectation of survival, life is less intrinsically valuable and risk avoidance is not critical. Change things around such that everyone has a very good chance of living a long, healthy, prosperous life so long as they don't fuck it up, and risk aversion skyrockets. It's easy to forget that the generation currently in power in most industrialized nations is the first in human history to be raised thinking survival to adulthood was a given.
Alternatively, would you rather a world with 80% functionality safely, or a world with 100% functionality with people you don’t trust doing malicious things?
After the past few years… anyone who can seriously complain about this seems like their identity is wrapped up in not admitting that the worst “misinformation” didn’t come from bad apples - but official sources.
I'd definitely prefer the latter. The damage that bad actors can do is often extremely limited, while the potential benefits of more capability are boundless.
Interesting question. We developed the whole concept of justice because this kind of abstract utilitarian morality doesn’t apply well. I’m all-in on justice. Give me the full model. I’m not doing anything wrong.
>would you rather a world with 80% functionality with people you don’t trust doing malicious things, or a world with 100% functionality with people you don’t trust doing malicious things?
