Ironically, such a world would have to be populated by people born after the epoch, not before, to fully take advantage of the conceptual freedoms it would have to offer.
The usefulness of this kind of advice depends on the context. Someone who is in a rich environment for new experiences and opportunities, like college, would benefit from not over thinking. On the other hand, someone who is trying to get into college needs to be very discriminating in order to avoid the pitfalls of bad information(from parents, counselors, advocates for various for profit schools, etc) or short term temptations.
Also, I have to nitpick the party example:
“Unlucky people miss chance opportunities because they are too focused on looking for something else. They go to parties intent on finding their perfect partner, and so miss opportunities to make good friends. They look through the newspaper determined to find certain job advertisements and, as a result, miss other types of jobs. Lucky people are more relaxed and open, and therefore see what is there, rather than just what they are looking for.”
What about the people who go into something knowing what they want, and end up getting it? Too often the final judgement of a decision is made after the situation is resolved, with the benefit of perfect information, and not the limited information the person actually had.
>There's a startup that does 3D scans of shoes and allows users to determine the perfect fit by asking about shoes they already own (can't remember the name). IIRC, they plan on doing clothes, too. That would be the ideal.
Wow, someone please come forward with the name of this startup. I need new shoes, and if this works I'm spreading the news to everyone I know.
I have a probably dumb question about search privacy, but what are the chances of Google actually screwing up/getting hacked, and spilling our search histories into the public (like AOL from a few years ago)?
DDG's search results are fine, but I like Google just a little bit more. Assuming I don't care about the government or Google's advertising algorithms, and I just don't want my private thoughts/questions spilling out into the public, does the risk make it worth using DDG?
This is everyone-and-their-pet-dog's theory, and it makes no sense. Why would the amount of time passed have any effect on the brain's time keeping mechanism?
It's probably because the brain gets worse at encoding memories as it ages, so fewer memories/unit time = faster time perception. Also, older people have slower cognitive tempo than younger people.
Achievement is definitely way more than just natural ability. Experience counts for a lot, and older people will have a large knowledge advantage. However, he has a legitimate point about natural analytic ability and speed.
Seriously, if you need a kick in the ass to get moving every now and then (like me), then google Timothy Salthouse's research on cognitive aging. It's a depressing reminder that time waits for no one.
You don't understand value. There is no other explanation for why you can't seem to understand why people choose things you personally don't approve of.
We live in a world of scarce resources. You need to create at least as much value for others as you consume, but beyond that point you can choose to do whatever you want that doesn't infringe on the law or other people (well, you only need to worry about the law, but ethically you should think of others too). Some people just don't care about the things you value. Why is that such a problem for you?
"6. Do not seek professional help - you are normal for your age."
But people throw years of their lives away thinking this when, in fact, they have a real problem. Seeking consultation from a professional is the low-risk, potentially high reward choice.
>On the other hand, anthropogenic global warming is a matter of degree.
Yes, few informed people would disagree. The problem, however, is with how the debate is presented to the public. Watching CNN or MSNBC someone would come away with the impression that the debate is between the political conservative position (either wait and see, or it's not a problem), and the IPCC.
In reality, the scientific debate is centered around the IPCC[1], with some scientists being more conservative in future projections, and some being more dire. The scientific uncertainty that you speak of cuts both ways, and could also end up revealing a nightmare scenario of climate feedbacks. See:http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
I disagree. Quantifying the energy balance of the planet is easier than quantifying the aggregate behavior of individual, semi-rational actors in the marketplace. What happens within the climate system of the Earth is chaotic, but the energy balance itself is measurable.
I'm not going to track down all the literature behind those numbers here, but there are published, falsifiable arguments supporting them. Climate models aren't similar to Wall Street voodoo.
This is very disappointing. These community sites like reddit and the old Digg are great for finding funny and unusual content, but they are very poor for discovering new content tailored to specific interests. Twitter is barely serviceable for this purpose, but there's also a lot of fluff.
I was projecting my hopes of personalized content discovery onto My News, but it looks hopeless now.
I think the real issue here is that the baby boomers and later generations enjoy infantilizing their children. First they needed to protect their 10 year olds from nonexistent child predators, wifi and inorganic food. Then they needed to protect their 16 year olds from depraved newfangled sex ("rainbow parties", etc), completely unlike the sex they had during the 60's/70's. Now that their kids are grown up, they need a new reason to remain involved and treat them as infants.
Well, as long as we're shooting from the hip, I think there's a different reason behind delayed marriage and childbearing. Being constantly flooded with information allows people to form a better picture of where they fit in the world, and be generally more self aware of what they want out of life. That means that people can't live life on instinctual autopilot like they used to. Why spend some of the best years for taking a risk (not just startups, but things like taking a year off to backpack, etc.) doing the most staid and conservative thing a person can do--settle down and start a family?
I could easily be wrong, but I seriously doubt that being coddled as kids has any bearing on the current state of adulthood. That's the kind of thing people have been saying forever.
The solutions are welfare and subsidies for education.
Creativity in business requires a fair amount of luck. The successful 1% will need to be drawn from a large, educated, middle class. Even if most people end up striking out, it will be in our best interest to keep as many people within striking distance as possible.
"construction, landscaping/yard maintenance, plumbing, automotive work, or a factory job"
Traditional jobs are the first to go in tough economic times.
Trade school is a short term play. The world is only going to get more complex. While trade school might make someone better off in their 20s relative to someone who went to college, in the long term it will severely limit their opportunities.