How You Can Gain Self Control Without "Self-Control"

Interesting... Can you tell more about how your self-control training looked like? Like when in the day, how long, how hard, what tasks, etc? Was the most productive period in your life during or after this training? Why did you stop?

To carry on with the strength training comparison, we're usually trying to achieve a maximum deployed strength over our lifetime. Perhaps we're already deploying as much strength as we can every day for useful tasks, so that adding strength training on pointless tasks would remove strength from the other tasks?


In my opinion, the 4 killer features of vim beyond moving around and basic editing are:

  • macros
  • the s command used with regular expressions
  • the g command (see e.g. Power of g)
  • the ability to run text through any Unix utility (Vim and the shell)

If you know your Unix utilities (I often use awk inside of vim; it's also great outside of it), your regular expressions, and these features, you can sculpt any text as you wish. What I mean is that you can take the output of pretty much anything, in a messed up format, and transform it into the content and format you want. This is supposed to be inspiring but I'm not sure how good a job I'm doing.

Also, if anyone's interested, here are my current vim Anki cards. I use Anki for keyboard shortcuts which are supposed to be muscle memory, AMA

Predictions for future dispositions toward Twitter

"Twitter" has a high variance. For some people (probably the vast majority of them), the comparison to smoking is certainly relevant; for a few others, Twitter is very beneficial. Here are a few variables that I think have a huge impact on the overall value a user derives from Twitter:

  1. Who are you? What's your mental state like?
  2. What do you want from Twitter (read thoughtful discussions? participate in them? be aware of relevant news and opportunities? meet like-minded people? influence people? increase your follower count / gain status? escape from boredom? etc)?
  3. Who do you follow, unfollow, mute, partially mute?
  4. When and how often do you engage with Twitter?
  5. How frequently are you reading vs writing publicly vs writing DMs?
  6. When you're only reading, how fast are you scrolling and how much are you thinking?
  7. What client do you use?
  8. Do you read tweets from your home timeline, from lists or from specific users' profiles?
  9. Are you continually trying to improve the quality of your experience?

I'm probably missing many others.

Moloch's Toolbox (2/2)

Meta-problems in general [...] are issues outside the Overton window.

Does anyone have a theory about why this is the case? Thinking out loud:

  • voting systems: I guess any mention from a politician would be immediately dismissed as agenda-based. And well, probably any mention from anyone. Making changes to political systems also has a Chesterton's fence component: we know how our system behaves, we don't know how this new system would behave, and we know from history that we should be quite happy to have political systems that kind of work and haven't already led us to totalitarianism. I'm not sure this aspect contributes to making these ideas outside of the Overton window, though.

  • academic science being focused more on prestige than on producing knowledge: it's about prestige and social status, which are a bit taboo? Fear of fueling science deniers? Respectable newspapers have themselves been pursuing prestige for decades?

  • other relevant meta-problems?

In general, if you talk about changing the rules of the game you're playing in your personal career, you'll be dismissed as making up new rules just to get an edge; if you talk about rules you're not playing, you're not an expert.

Any thoughts?