Path A: you’re shown the meme; “lmfao, nice” — now you’ve broken ice or strengthened a bond
Path B: “nah” — “whatever”
——
Don’t send your kids to a run of the mill public school — which is infested with children of asshats, jackasses, and assholes. Don’t live in in that sort of community. If you can help it, these will be some of the biggest factors in how your kid turns out.
I’ve been to a lot of schools. Kids from parents that just don’t give a shit will turn out like them: vampires, parasites, and people that generally drag others down for their own benefit (unless they’re lucky and get out).
Mean kids come from mean families. Usually people are mean because they don’t have the resources to fill whatever hole they have in them — and have to use maladaptions to get their fix. I.e. money problems and never taught the skills or given the resources to ease them.
I.e. send your kid to a private school that is recommended by people you trust. Just like you would a dentist, or a mechanic, and so on.
Easier said than done, but not an unsolvable problem.
- If you map out the entire system, and understand how all the pieces fit together, you can: make something simpler that fulfills reqs/does the same exact thing; use template metaprogramming to generate the source code for you, instead of writing it by hand
The only issue is very few people will have the skills or the patience to sit down and try to understand metaprogramming. So you won't be able to take advantage of it in most business use-cases (i.e. won't easily be able to find another cog to work on it), despite how powerful it is.
It's like why more people don't work with K (or functional langs, etc.): it's not a simple procedural or OO language, so it's harder to learn -- and harder to get started with.
Same reason we (SW engineers) think X field is easy and can be self-taught: the fundamentals are easy to learn, but figuring out where and how to deal with edge cases when they pop up is something that can only be learned with experience.
I see the same with a certain subset of finance people who learn Python, and start thinking coding is easy. Yeah, fair you can whip some simple Jupyter notebook using Pandas to analyze time-series. Now build out a distributed, fault-tolerant ETL (CRUD++) system that follows all business rules, is maintainable/readable, and can scale to atleast 100 "servers."
Perhaps not the most apt comparison -- but the fundamentals in every field are easy to learn; but working at the edge is something you have no experience in until you do.
In fairness, of all the long-winded, self-important, over-socialized drivel that New Yorker puts out, this is atleast somewhat focused on the “real world” (and not the latest hot topic for over-educated yuppies to have neurotic fits about).
People who have never worked hard labor/trades/“back-breaking work” have zero insight into what goes on in the jobs being discussed, aside from some misplaced abstract notion of “I spent my youth being educated in a school — so that is what’s good and right; and all children should have that life.”
I grew up in a blue collar, rural part of the country. Education sucked — it was a waste of time that wouldn’t help you much at all in life. You will sit in a classroom for hours every single day, and for what? So you can go to college? You’re a lower class white kid from bumfuck America, no way you’re getting in; and no way you’re not paying for it yourself if you do.
If you’re lucky, there’s a church around that has families that own construction companies attending. They’ll set you up with some work, take decent care of you, and now you’re part of a community.
Hell, maybe your family or friends own a trades biz, and will take you on as an apprentice.
If not, then you take up the shitwork (landscaping, concrete, roofing), start building your skillset, and start learning and earning. Once you have a little bit saved up and can prove you’re not a drugged up criminal, you might start shooting for better work. You’re 20 now, you’re still young, you have no debt, a little bit of cash, and you have some hard skills, the world is your oyster.
Instead of being 22-24 graduating into a tech recession, with zero real skills, a bunch of debt, and little hope of landing your first job unless you schmooze or play dirty.
It helps that the “upper class” is mostly faux, and driven by fashion more than anything innate.
Zuckerberg is not upper class in the classical sense. He doesn’t have the resources or molding to truly be able to fuck off, live in the woods in a centuries-old mansion, rolling in debauchery and in complete disassociation from humanity.
I.e. if you know about them, they’re not upper class, but very high upper middle class (they still “work” and participate in vulgar activities like business, rather than utterly “worthless” activities that are driven by innate desire, not glorified peer pressure).
Mitt Romney is upper middle class. The Bushes are upper middle class. The Sacklers, the Clintons, the Kochs, Buffett, Gates, the Siemens, the Onassis’, the Waltons — all relatively new players, and haven’t yet been aged by centuries of absolute apathy and detachment. Ellison is definitely getting there.
I think the biggest difference between him and the rest are upbringing. Ellison was not raised upper middle class, and had little regard for his family and circle. He did not have countless other upper middle class people around him in his formative years to mold his soul into conforming with upper middle class sensibilities (make money, gain influence, be interesting, important, play the image game, etc.). And now he’s fucked off to Lanai.
The only thing that man values is himself and his capricious desires — that is what the upper class is. There is no internal need within him to conform to external pressures. The man is a cunt.
What about the rest of the list? They grew up in relative affluence, and the upper middle class sensibilities have been imprinted onto them. To use a pop-culture example, none of them are Logan Roys. They care how people view them — especially their intimates. They might feign thoughtless excellence, but deep down they’re driven by the external forces that molded them.
If there’s any amusing note it’s that the true upper class has more in common with the lower class than it does with the middle. The middle lives on lies and self-deceptions, while the upper and lower only care about themselves and their authentic desires.
For example, compare Roedean to Philips Exeter. The people are utterly different — and the wealth and money is but a surface measure.
* Well-rounded in the context of a specific sub-culture, and such
The flip side being, a father is not an absolute necessity, so long as there are adults with testosterone-correlated traits (actual; not stereotypical) in the life of the child.
This could be one of the mothers, or it could be male figures in other areas.
Ironically, you’re doing exactly what the parent is describing: being pedantic to prove a point/win an argument because the OP was too hasty and forgot to append “pseudo” to his “intellectual.”
I’m certain most of us know what the parent is talking about on an intuitive, vs verbal level (i.e. the idea was communicated, even if the words used to communicate it were not 100% on point)
That would require for you to be a well-rounded person that hasn’t optimized for only one facet of the job (e.g. money, technical skill, etc.) — at that point might as well be an entrepreneur.
It would also require that your interviewees are not comprised of psychos willing to take whatever measure necessary to get what they want (i.e. play the game/talk the talk) — which usually does not happen when a lot of money or power is being offered.
> what the hell is the rest of the world thinking?
— “Who wants to work that hard for nothing?”
— “We’re a tech company? What do we actually do? Something that: atomizes social relations; enables the violation of people’s privacy and rights; or simply plays hot-potato with funny money? Yeah, pass. My friends and family would think I’m a chancer.”
— “What you’re doing goes against local laws and ethics. You can’t do that here.”
— “A business should help the country and its people; not the people that built it.”
— “Spending all my free time to become marginally more knowledgeable and skilled than my coworkers/‘competition’? I’d rather spend time with my friends and family — or a hobby.”
— “Money? What am I gonna do with money — buy a house? Then what.”
Linked study equivocating on the overstatement of statin side-effects has the first author as a pharmaceutical consultant (you do not see this as a problem, I do).
2% ARR is meager in relation to lifestyle changes that can account for 3x-15x the in ARR compared to statins (you do not see this as a problem, I do).
Those are the facts. How you interpret them is subjective.
All of the money and manpower thrown into statins, could have been thrown into smoking cessation programs or preventing onset of type 2 diabetes. This is an opinion.
Saving 1 life for every 50 patients, at the cost of untold resources, instead of saving 6-30 for every 50 is myopic. This is an opinion.
Medical significance is an opinion. The determination of significance is a subjective interpretation. This is not a "this idea concurs with my sentiments, so I will say it is so. Period." This is math. Statistical interpretation is an opinion. The difference in statin efficacy vs. lifestyle changes is a quantifiable fact. The difference is 3-15x. To take a statistical finding without incorporating it into the larger context is poor practice, bordering on deception (the former is a fact, the latter is an opinion).
Here are 50 people aged 50 y.o. from the general population:
Outlaw modern-day corporate trafficking. You cannot buy pieces of a person; corporations are legally people; you should not be able to buy pieces of them.
Remove the corporate veil. All liability will rest upon a corporation's guardians. Bankruptcy, and civil and criminal suits, will personally affect the officers and shareholders of said corporation (and their assets). The same way, if your child goes out drinking and driving, the parents are now liable for any people slaughtered along the way; or if your dog goes out and mauls some child, it will be put down and you will face restitution for damages.
Leave no opening for others to be mean towards you. One of those is going about life not trying to push/get things out of people -- but to share in the "good vibes."
Genuine happiness, without an under-current of consciousnesses of the possible utility, has very little detractors -- like a child that is unabashedly excited about a Christmas present. Throughout time, people usually realize they can temporarily generate and express feelings, that can influence others and be used for self-interest (no matter how small. E.g. forcing yourself to be happy about a present you received). In turn, they lose authenticity for utility -- and I believe people can sense that on an intuitive level, and put up their guard.
Human interaction is all push and pull. Don't be another force trying to push on people, and they will get along with you.
Financial engineering as a discipline is insane. Literally the definition of insane: seriously mentally ill and unable to live in normal society [0] -- so detached from the "normal" reality most people live in, and taken hold like a schizophrenic about things that only exist in one's own head.
Shareholders are rent-seeking parasites. They have put down an initial investment to purchase some asset, and now consider themselves given the right to lord over those who labor for that asset, while providing little in value (no different than absentee/"hands-off" landlords).
It would be one thing to actually loan a set amount of money, with a set payback period that ends sometime in the future. It is another to declare oneself a relative God Emperor, and shackle others for entirely one's own benefit, in perpetuity.
To continue the metaphor, the wild can no longer feed itself, because of a set of people taken hold by delusions have irreparably destroyed the wild's ability to. No different than someone buying a cat, and keeping it locked up in a house all day. Yes, food and shelter is provided -- but a cat would be able to achieve those for itself, were it not for a chain of man-made events that landed it in such a predicament. The cat would've either not been born and never landed itself at the mercy of others, or would've been born in the wild, and lived without a sovereign ruling over it.
> I'd say that generally it's advisable to take both into consideration given that in most cases the author of a paper likely has more domain expertise than you in that specific area. Not always, obviously, and not to the exclusion of an outside objective analysis of their data and results, but it's certainly more informative than referring someone to a page from a study with no additional context.
I do not agree. I do not have the time to elaborate further.
————
> I get where you're coming from here, but it's kind of silly. And the question becomes where do you draw the line? Is a meta-analysis of a large group of studies each of which has been supported at least in part by funding from a pharmaceutical company guilty by association? That aside, the structure of research funding with regards to pharmaceuticals (at least in the US so far as I'm aware) makes the likelihood of conducting any long term, large scale study without receiving any funding from a pharmaceutical company vanishingly small. There have certainly been issues with studies funded and conducted by those companies, but that doesn't mean that all studies funded by them are instantly invalid. Nor does it mean that it's impossible to conduct a study that has received their funding without compromising its integrity. It is entirely possible to take sufficient measures to isolate those companies from the actual process and analysis of the research.
Again, I do not agree. These are matters of values, and no arguments can be made for what we innately value. I draw a nuanced line based on my values, that I have tried to express here; but making it finer and finer will serve no purpose but as fuel for disagreement — because it is wholly subjective.
Possibility is not actuality. Most researchers are not a Platonic ideal: perfectly noble and virtuous and vigilant. They are real people: lazy, prone to error, requiring money to survive, self-interest at the very forefront.
I will not call your viewpoint naive, but it’s something that can only be formed when one’s exposure to this field is limited to papers and doctor’s visits.
> Why that number? And why that number in two very different contexts? Regardless, statins have been show in numerous studies to be highly effective.
Because 2% ARR is the highest change I’ve seen in any statin experiment — in either context. I do not consider one out of every fifty people being saved by a statin significant, or my definition of “highly effective.”
> It appears that the evidence in support of the use of statins is quite overwhelming.
My patience for reiterating this point is gone: relative changes are not absolute changes.
A starting risk profile of 2.25%, reduced to 1.25%, will have been reduced an absolute 1%, but a relative 44%.
This is why you read the methodology, and not the authors’ interpretation of their own data.
Then we are at an uncrossable philosophical chasm.
I don’t consider 2% ARR huge — especially when the risks of side-effects have been down-played. We can argue about this all we want, but it’s no longer a matter of fact, but of opinion and values.