a couple related terms: skill corridor, or competency plateaus, exist when a community both fails to cultivate newbies (creating a skill floor) and brain drain as people above a certain skill ceiling tend to leave as they have better opportunities available.

Very helpful for me. Just noticed the other day that I didn't know what the use-mention distinction was actually about.

Each habit has its own reward structure. Those with smaller loops are much easier to inculcate. Thinking past the close (alternatively, ignoring semantic, or somatic, stop signs) could have enough reward that it could potentially stick.

3 to 18 months of making something a priority.

A breakthrough is just the beginning of at least 3 months, and upwards of 18 months to solidify the thing IME. It's difficult for people to make commitments this big.

In Therevada there's a saying that 'insights are infinite' meaning that there is no end to nifty things you can notice about the mind, but most aren't of durable value.

Nobody would see sad movies if sympathy and empathy were the same thing. Highly sympathetic people avoid those who suffer because they don't want to experience that. Empathy enables moving towards suffering because compassion is a positive experience.

Are there any papers on current efforts to tokenize video and estimating the size of available data for that?

Reasonable, I don't know much about the situation

Reading between the lines on the responses, it sounds like op doesn't have the ability to evaluate grants effectively and has attribute substituted itself to doing things that superficially look like evaluation and selecting internally for people who are unable to distinguish between appearance and actuality. This sounds like a founder effect, downstream of Dustin and Cari being unable to evaluate. This seems like it rhymes with the VC world having a similar dynamic where people on the outside assume it's about funding cutting edge highly uncertain projects but, after lots of wasted effort, those interested in such high variance projects eventually conclude that VC mostly selects for low variance with a bias towards insiders.

That is to say: investors recognize that they don't have expertise in selecting unusual projects, so they hire people to ostensibly specialize in evaluating unusual projects, but their own taste in selecting the evaluators means that the evaluators eventually select/are selected for pleasing the investors.

To be specific: some combination of op/gv acts like its opportunity cost for capital is quite high, and it's unclear why. One hypothesis is 'since we're unable to evaluate grants, if we're profligate with money we will be resource pumped even more than we already are.'

My impression for several years has been that the effort people trying to do interesting work put into trying to engage with ea was wasted, and led to big emotional let downs that impacted their productivity.

There continue to be almost no weirdness dollars available. Temporary availability of weirdness dollars seem to get eaten by those who are conventionally attractive but put on quirky glasses and muss up their hair to appear weird. Like geek protagonists in movies. There's no escaping the taste of the founder in the long run.

Feels complicated to atomize for some of the same reasons it's a candidate. Think the modern most successful area was PayPal where they had the feedback loop of millions a day being lost to fraud at one point early on.