> I think people also like the idea that there can be these systems in place for hundreds of years, and an individual can come along and intelligence and hard work, can turn the systems upside down or develop something better.
That's what the Gracie family did with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Except they actually proved it worked by dominating the early years of UFC before they even introduced weight classes.
It seems like you would've mentioned your own success rather than those around you when talking about how feasible it is. It's a lot easier to say something is achievable when you've done it yourself.
And again, I think you would've simply responded "I have" rather than ask me what I think. Obviously I could be wrong.
Sure, but in reference to the comment "because of the time difference" it seems pretty obvious he was referring to time zones, not the dates the laws took effect.
The story I heard before the PR spin that came from Paul Graham later (where he tweeted that he never fired him and asked him to choose between YC and OpenAI) was that he was asked to resign. I don't have an official source, I heard this from multiple YC alumni. I don't know exactly what happened but based on what I've heard and actually having interacted with Sam Altman, it seems most likely to me he was asked to resign (which isn't technically being fired) because he does weird stuff. He claimed to be a chairman of YC which wasn't true, he barred other YC partners from running personal funds while he did it himself, and then all the further similar behaviors we've seen play out at OpenAI. Maybe you're right, but it seems to me he was "fired" and later there was some PR to smooth it over.
Why do you assume there would be a balance? Maybe YC's reputation has just been going downhill for years. Also, OpenAI isn't part of YC. Sam Altman was fired from YC and it's pretty obvious what he learned from that was to cheat harder, not change his behavior.
3% is 50% more than 2%, so it's nowhere near being within 1% of the target. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but there is an enormous difference between 1% and 50%.
I doubt this would do much to stop kids from looking at porn. It would only intimidate people that are afraid of breaking the rules, not people that just want to find what they're looking for. By this logic kids can't buy alcohol either.
You're being hyperbolic, and it diminishes your argument. Not everybody in your generation suffers from the same addiction as you. I could be persuaded it's a large problem and is generational, but I don't believe we have the same kind of biological responses to social media as we do to something like sunlight.
I also believe there is another side of the argument, and people just consume media differently today. The internet came and it was the death of media, the TV came and it was the death of books, the books came and they were the death of the bard, etc. Maybe some people actually enjoy Facebook?
That's what the Gracie family did with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Except they actually proved it worked by dominating the early years of UFC before they even introduced weight classes.