Ironically, such a world would have to be populated by people born after the epoch, not before, to fully take advantage of the conceptual freedoms it would have to offer.
The usefulness of this kind of advice depends on the context. Someone who is in a rich environment for new experiences and opportunities, like college, would benefit from not over thinking. On the other hand, someone who is trying to get into college needs to be very discriminating in order to avoid the pitfalls of bad information(from parents, counselors, advocates for various for profit schools, etc) or short term temptations.
Also, I have to nitpick the party example:
“Unlucky people miss chance opportunities because they are too focused on looking for something else. They go to parties intent on finding their perfect partner, and so miss opportunities to make good friends. They look through the newspaper determined to find certain job advertisements and, as a result, miss other types of jobs. Lucky people are more relaxed and open, and therefore see what is there, rather than just what they are looking for.”
What about the people who go into something knowing what they want, and end up getting it? Too often the final judgement of a decision is made after the situation is resolved, with the benefit of perfect information, and not the limited information the person actually had.
>There's a startup that does 3D scans of shoes and allows users to determine the perfect fit by asking about shoes they already own (can't remember the name). IIRC, they plan on doing clothes, too. That would be the ideal.
Wow, someone please come forward with the name of this startup. I need new shoes, and if this works I'm spreading the news to everyone I know.
Thanks for the link. I tried it a couple of times for a couple of different fits and I wish they had more refinement options .. like options to tell what fits to avoid and more than 1 recommendation, stability/pronation et al. for running shoes, etc.
Also sucks that for all my fits, it always showed an Asics product, a brand which I personally don't like as their fits / soles are the worst for me.
Hey, I'm one of the Shoefitr co-founders. The demo on the homepage assumes you're buying the Asics GT-2150 and just need to know what size to buy (and how it will feel). You can try it for all sorts of running shoes at http://www.runningwarehouse.com. Suggesting new products based on what you currently wear will be rolling out soon...
I have a probably dumb question about search privacy, but what are the chances of Google actually screwing up/getting hacked, and spilling our search histories into the public (like AOL from a few years ago)?
DDG's search results are fine, but I like Google just a little bit more. Assuming I don't care about the government or Google's advertising algorithms, and I just don't want my private thoughts/questions spilling out into the public, does the risk make it worth using DDG?
Not that that is a problem that just Google has, but given that Gabriel really has no way at all to link two searches together, let alone build a profile, makes it attractive to me.
I also seem to be one of the few people who actually finds that DDG returns much better results. All the people I've talked to irl seem to think the opposite. Wonder if that is a placebo effect of sorts on my part ("DDG is one, pretty cool guy so of course it's better than giant corperation!") or what.
This is everyone-and-their-pet-dog's theory, and it makes no sense. Why would the amount of time passed have any effect on the brain's time keeping mechanism?
It's probably because the brain gets worse at encoding memories as it ages, so fewer memories/unit time = faster time perception. Also, older people have slower cognitive tempo than younger people.
Achievement is definitely way more than just natural ability. Experience counts for a lot, and older people will have a large knowledge advantage. However, he has a legitimate point about natural analytic ability and speed.
Seriously, if you need a kick in the ass to get moving every now and then (like me), then google Timothy Salthouse's research on cognitive aging. It's a depressing reminder that time waits for no one.
You don't understand value. There is no other explanation for why you can't seem to understand why people choose things you personally don't approve of.
We live in a world of scarce resources. You need to create at least as much value for others as you consume, but beyond that point you can choose to do whatever you want that doesn't infringe on the law or other people (well, you only need to worry about the law, but ethically you should think of others too). Some people just don't care about the things you value. Why is that such a problem for you?
"6. Do not seek professional help - you are normal for your age."
But people throw years of their lives away thinking this when, in fact, they have a real problem. Seeking consultation from a professional is the low-risk, potentially high reward choice.
Age 30, sure. Age 21, when you are still figuring out who the real you is... not sure that helps or hurts.
At his age he'd be better off reading some good non-tech books... Catcher in the Rye, Siddhartha, Fountainhead, a Taoism book... maybe a Philip K. Dick book or Vonnegut for some fun.
Maybe it's just me but I haven't run across too many mental health professionals that really seemed to know what they were doing. It's like chiropractors - there are a lot of them that are doing more harm than good it seems.
>On the other hand, anthropogenic global warming is a matter of degree.
Yes, few informed people would disagree. The problem, however, is with how the debate is presented to the public. Watching CNN or MSNBC someone would come away with the impression that the debate is between the political conservative position (either wait and see, or it's not a problem), and the IPCC.
In reality, the scientific debate is centered around the IPCC[1], with some scientists being more conservative in future projections, and some being more dire. The scientific uncertainty that you speak of cuts both ways, and could also end up revealing a nightmare scenario of climate feedbacks. See:http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
I disagree. Quantifying the energy balance of the planet is easier than quantifying the aggregate behavior of individual, semi-rational actors in the marketplace. What happens within the climate system of the Earth is chaotic, but the energy balance itself is measurable.
I'm not going to track down all the literature behind those numbers here, but there are published, falsifiable arguments supporting them. Climate models aren't similar to Wall Street voodoo.
Looking at the Summary for Policymakers that you linked to, we are given measurements of [+0.6 to +2.4] W/ sq m at 90% confidence. Notice the huge interval: the interval length is three times the least value. If we'd re-scale it for 95%, or even 99% (the FDA will require that much for some drugs!), the warming disappears completely.
And this is simply the measurement part. _Predicting_ what will happen is a thousand times more difficult. If you want predictive science based on the laws of physics, look at astronomy. 4000 years ago, the Babylonians could predict astronomical events with much more precision than anything today's climatologists can predict about average temperatures.
