Wiki Contributions


It's the "Boy who cried wolf" fable in the format of an incident report such as what might be written in the wake of an industrial disaster. Whether the fictional report writer has learned the right lessons I suppose is an exercise left for the reader.

My advice would be this:

Trying to meet people for the sole purpose of dating them is a spiritually toxic endeavor, with online dating being particularly bad. I had a handful of girlfriends before meeting my wife, none of whom came to me through online dating or trying to get dates with people I didn't know.

I contend that the best path to a relationship is through community, broadly defined. What you want is to be around people with whom you can cultivate compatibility. The online dating/cold approach model relies on being able to quickly discern compatibility, which I think most people are kind of bad at.

My definition of community in this context is any circumstance that lets you repeatedly interact with people in a non-targeted way. For meeting my wife, that was a weekly bar trivia night. For past partners it was a mix of extracurricular activity groups and friends-of-friendgroups. These environments accomplish a handful of things at once; they establish shared background and positive memories, they let you display and observe positive traits that are difficult to signal on a dating profile or on a date (e.g. patience or thoughtfulness), and ideally they're intrinsically worth existing in for their own sake. That last one is important because, to use my first example, even if I hadn't met my wife playing that bar trivia game, I still would have had fun going and I made other friends along the way.

You can't just show up and expect things to fall in your lap, of course. You do want to be improving yourself and putting your best foot forwards. Not all communities are created equal so once in a while you need to step back and evaluate if you need new opportunities in your life. And obviously, you still have to be ready to actually ask someone out eventually.

It's not easy, necessarily, but it did work for me.

You're not wrong. Learning to crimp really does enable climbers to perform feats that others cannot, and plenty of them suffer injuries like the one I've linked to and decide to heal and keep going. My addendum isn't "never do something hard or risky," it's "pain is a warning; consider what price you are willing to pay before you go pushing through it."

Addendum: Crimp grips are a major cause of climbing injuries. It's sheer biomechanics. The crimp grip puts massive stress on connective tissues which aren't strong enough to reliably handle them.

The moral of the addendum: choose your impossible challenges wisely; even if you can overcome them the stress and pain might have been a warning from the beginning. If nothing else it should be a warning to get some good advice about prevention or you may find yourself unable to pursue your goal for weeks at a time.

It's going to be tricky. You may already be too close to the situation to judge impartially, and a case study is going to be difficult to use as evidence against population-level surveys of well-being, especially for your implied time horizon. You could attempt to benchmark against previous work, e.g. see what the literature has to say about the effects of poverty on diet, educational attainment, etc. in first-world cities, but your one new data point still won't generalize and it wouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in your argument for localism at that point.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, emergency mobilization systems refers to autonomic responses like a pounding heartbeat, heightened subjective senses, and other types of physical arousal; i.e. the things your body does when you believe someone or something is coming to kill you with spear or claw. Literal fight or flight stuff.

In both examples you give there is true danger, but your felt bodily sense doesn't meaningfully correspond to it; you can't escape or find the bomb by being ready for an immediate physical threat. This is the error being referred to. In both cases the preferred state of mind is resolute problem-solving and inability to register a felt sense of panic will likely reduce your ability to get to such a state.

I think I see your point but I'm not sure how to answer the question as you posed it so let me make an analogy:

Imagine I come to you and say "I have a revolutionary new car design that will revolutionize the market and break the chokehold of big auto! Best of all, it's completely safe; the locks are unpickable and the windows are unbreakable, so no one will ever be able to mug you in your car!"

You would be wise to ask "Okay, but what about in a crash? Is it safe there?" and the truth would be no, not really. Actually people who get caught in crashes with this car are in more danger. And car crashes are so much more common than people being mugged in their car that if you do the math my new car substantially increases your risk exposure.

So when I'm talking about the status quo, I'm talking about the risk landscape that the technology needs to be robust against. Normal currency is subject to a lot of social engineering attacks and very few technical ones, so crypto is solving the wrong problem because as thousands of stolen Bored Apes can attest, you can still be easily tricked into giving the wrong people your wallet details. Although the normal currency world is far from perfect it does at least have recourse sometimes, like transaction reversals or legal redress.

I'd say that's a good point but perhaps doesn't exhaustively cover all the problems. The way I've come to think about crypto which I think is roughly congruent is that the things crypto is good for (decentralization, security against hacking) are not major vectors of attack by bad actors under the status quo, and the things it isn't robust against definitely are. (social engineering, obfuscation of value)

This can be true but it varies a decent amount with expectations I think. As my friends get older and more of us have kids to think about it's becoming more normalized to have a mix of sobriety levels at what would have once been drunk parties.

Any industry with public exposure is going to run into problems. Take retail; having the store open at all possible profitable hours is much more important than having a full complement of staff at any given moment. My job is only adjacent to retail but even so, having a whole team go on vacation would put the supply chain on pause. That move might technically be possible with advance planning but it would have major impacts on throughput.

I think any sector that relies on moving physical matter (including people) through space is a bad candidate because you're often dealing with a cap on the amount of effective capacity your capital has, so having a team of people go dark will lead to underutilization. Consider maintenance jobs, shipping, manufacturing, food, emergency services, transport, and I'm sure a dozen others.

Load More