Tried it. Realized that Pareto rules all. 80% of conversation is filler and pure waste. The remaining 20% is ok. Though no chat feature, and all the natural evolutionary clues of turn taking, facial cues etc is gone. Half the 20% conversation you enter in middle and spend an inordinate amount of time just catching up to what people are talking about. I deleted the app 5 days later. Ill read this blog and the written word over filler and pleasantries just to get a basic human conversation. Or you know, post-covid, go hang out in the bar and enjoy the company of people. You can also just set a time to call friends and family. You'll get 10X more out of it, and cut your wasted time by 50X.
"The work of a politically active American is never done, least of all at the voting booth."I think this is a great point. The tradeoff to democracy is constant friction of iron on iron, power on power (separation of powers). The benefit of which is a lack of tyranny and clear laws. Montesquieu (grandfather of the US constitution) argues that for a democracy to thrive, there needs to be a love of virtue; of putting aside personal gain for the community or there would be too much friction. In the end there was a tradeoff. Democracies have constant struggle, as power is prevented from being entrenched. Do we adapt to it and thrive? or get bogged down? Is the downside protection worth the added prolonged stress to the system? Can a system thrive with constant stress and lack of social decorum & lubrication? It's a great experiment. Like with life's U-Curves, I suspect that some medium stress is good. Constant stress (or no stress in despotic gov) without a frictionless tonic will deteriorate the gears and crumble the links in the power chain.
"Does banning Trump stifle free speech? No. Twitter is a private company and not a state actor. The First Amendment does not apply to decisions about whom it allows to use its platform."This is a large legal debate. I will post here doctrines that have to do with the 4th Amendment and the co-current issue of privacy, and see if we can apply those rules. I am not certain they do apply to the First amendment, but we should discuss the spirit of the law. Should be noted (1) That due to large scale economic decisions, many large corporations and banks are (partially) owned or controlled by the Government. (2) Private vs public is subject to Judicial review. It is a factual claim.
The Rules:Individuals have a right under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable “to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any government official.” Walter v. United States, 477 U.S. 649, 662 (1980). Determining the existence of an agency relationship between the Government and the private party conducting the search turns on the degree of the Government’s involvement in the private party’s activities. This is done on a case-by-case basis, viewing the totality of circumstances. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 614-15 (1989).I don't know if twitter was in conversation with a government agency; I don't even know how the legal 4th A doctrine would apply to 1st Amendment. These are all speculative legal musings. All to point out that legal doctrines are not cut and dry, and ought not to be. I find it plausible that Twitter and Government agents were in contact. Its possible Twitter did something to curry favor. All this is plausible. Whether that affects 1st Amendment rights is a judicial question.
"Vague = Confusion"I would argue with this definition. I think the better position is that vague equals risk reduction strategy. As the old adage goes, words can't be rescinded. So there are scenarios where you want something, but don't want to be locked in. In legislation, the legislator may want a [Set] of actions to be legal-illegal, but needs to make rooms for edge cases or a violation of the spirit of the law, without knowing beforehand what the legislation-re-action will be. Some cases call for clarity. Some call for subtlety, wit, and tact. Language has multiple uses.
Here is Ole Peters: [Puzzle] "Voluntary insurance contracts constitute a puzzle because they increase the expectation value of one party’s wealth, whereas both parties must sign for such contracts to exist [Answer]: Time averages and expectation values differ because wealth changes are non-ergodic." Peters again: "Conceptually, its power derives from a new notion of rationality. Many reasonable models of wealth are non-stationary processes. Observables representing wealth then do not have the ergodic property of Section I, and therefore rationality must not be defined as maximizing expectation values of wealth. Rather, we propose as a null model to define rationality as maximizing the time-average growth of wealth." You write: "Kelly betting, on the other hand, assumes a finite bankroll -- and indeed, might have to be abandoned or adjusted to handle negative money." [Negative Interest rate?] Can you explain more? Would love to fit this conceptually into Peter's Non-ergodic growth rate theory
My basic and primitive understanding (From Taleb Etc.) is that there are a few ideas that are important; such as ergodicity; at least when trading in a complex market and why you should follow Kelly criterion. Also, fat tails etc. But when I did the research like you, it seemed quite sparse.
Literature is rife with individual stresses and anxiety, people don't really talk much about ecological stressors. Even if you are resilient, the environment plays a part in productivity.
"During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, traditional (offline) chess tournaments were prohibited and instead held online. We exploit this as a unique setting to assess the impact of moving offline tasks online on the cognitive performance of individuals...Our results suggest that teleworking might have adverse effects on workers performing cognitive tasks. KEY: A crucial difference to the offline setting is that the peer pressure to concentrate in a playing hall is missing. For instance, Falk and Ichino (2006) find that students place letters in envelopes at a higher speed when other students are faced with the same task sit in the room."
I strongly suspect that its Estrogen/ Estradiol being prevalent AND subsidized vs Testosterone being a scheduled drug - illegal (They even lowered the amount considered "low" for medicinal purposes).
After 30 years, well, people follow incentives. Cascading downstream endocrine effects are expected.
My understanding of CF is that to dismantle it, you first need to come up with a reason why the fence is there. Nearly any reason will do.
Example: Old rule: do not castrate animals.
People just discard this rule as obviously vapid. Yet the question remains, why does the rule exist in the first place? What changed?
If the counterparty can't elucidate "any" reason, well I know the conversation is going to be futile.
I find the rule very helpful.
While doing my research before buying LED lights, I came across 405 nm light. All he caveats of OP apply. Seems the companies are using hydrogen peroxide vapour.