It seems like this is a single building version of a gated community / suburb? In "idealized" America (where by idealized I mean somewhat affluent, morally homogeneous within the neighborhood, reasonably safe, etc), all the stuff you're describing already happens. Transportation for kids is provided by carpools or by the school, kids wander from house to house for meals and play, etc. Families get referrals for help (housekeeping, etc) from other families, or because there are a limited number of service providers in the area. In general, these aren't the hard things about having kids.
In my experience, here are the hard things:
I feel like I have all the things you state are required to have a huge edge, and yet...my edge is not obvious to me. Most of the money-making opportunities in DeFi seem to involve at least one of:
Yield farming does look attractive, and I plan to invest some stablecoins in the near future.
Despite being a webcomic, I think this is a funny, legitimate, and scathing critique of the philosophic life and to some extent the philosophy of rationality
I don't have an answer for the actual question you're asking (baseline side effects), however I would like to offer my experiences with nootropics. A number of years ago, I went through a phase where I tried a large variety of nootropics, including doing some basic psychometric tests on a daily basis (Stroop test, dual n-back, etc).
It's remarkably hard to find a test that measures cognitive ability and is immune to practice effects, but I figured some testing was better than just subjective assessments of how I felt.
In all my testing, I only found a very, very small handful of drugs that had any measurable effect:
Everything else I tried (*-racetam with and without choline, L-theanine, etc) had no measurable effects. I suspect nicotine might have had a measurable effect, but I wasn't willing to risk dependence.
Finally, I would suggest that nootropics are mostly small scale optimizations compared to the benefit you'll see from eating healthy, exercising, getting enough sleep, and maintaining a healthy body weight. If you haven't optimized these, take care of that first and you'll get a much bigger result from your efforts.
I think I mis-pasted the link. I have edited it, but it's suppose to go to https://www.aqr.com/Insights/Perspectives/A-Gut-Punch
I do agree that it increases the variance of outcomes. I think it decreases the mean, but I'm less sure about that. Here's one way I think it could work, if it does work: If some people are generally pessimistic about their chances of success, and this causes them to update their beliefs closer to reality, then Altman's advice would help. That is, if some people give up too easily, it will help them, while the outside world (investors, the market, etc) will put a check on those who are overly optimistic. However, I think it's still important to note that "not giving up" can lead not just to lack of success, but also to value destruction (Pets.com; Theranos; WeWork).
Thanks for the "Young Rationalists" link, I hadn't read that before. I think there are a fair number of successful rationalists, but they mostly focus on doing their work rather than engaging with the rationalist community. One example of this is Cliff Asness - here's a essay by him that takes a strongly rationalist view.
Almost always, the people who say “I am going to keep going until this works, and no matter what the challenges are I’m going to figure them out”, and mean it, go on to succeed. They are persistent long enough to give themselves a chance for luck to go their way.
I've seen this quote (and similar ones) before. I believe that this approach is extremely flawed, to the point of being anti-rationalist. In no particular order, my objections are:
The Moneyball story would be a good example of this. Essentially all of sports dismissed the quantitative approach until the A's started winning with it in 2002. Now quantitative management has spread to other sports like basketball, soccer, etc.
You could make a similar case for quantitative asset management. Pairs trading, one of the most basic kinds of quantitative trading, was discovered in the early 1980s (claims differ whether it was Paul Wilmott, Bamberger & Tartaglia at Morgan Stanley, or someone else). While the computation power to make this kind of trading easy was certainly more widely available starting in the 80s, nothing would have prevented someone from investing sooner in the research required for this style of trading. (Instead of, for instance, sending their analysts to become registered pseudoscientists)
Yeah, someone else suggested a novel nootropic drug as one answer - online education is basically an alternative form of that drug that is easier to realize (or at least, it's hard is a very different way)
...there are somewhere between six and ten billion people. At any given time, most of them are making mud bricks or field-stripping their AK-47s. - Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
When we think of new technologies, we typically think of expensive, high-tech innovations, like energy production, robotics, etc. I would suggest that broader adoption of existing technologies, including social technologies, would have a bigger global impact.
For example, one technology that could dramatically impact GDP is improved managerial technology. This paper describes a study of this in India. Among the findings in the paper (or in references that it cites):100% productivity spreads between the 10th and 90th percentile in US commodity-producing firms
A ratio of the 90th to the 10th percentiles of total factor productivity is 5.0 in Indian and 4.9 in Chinese firms
After improving management in the studied firms, "We estimate that within the first year productivity increased by 17%; based on these changes we impute that annual profitability increased by over $300,000. These better-managed firms also appeared to grow faster, with suggestive evidence that better management allowed them to delegate more and open more production plants in the three years following the start of the experiment"
FWIW, world GDP growth rates have if anything been decreasing over the last ~80 years