I experience this on a microscopic scale. When crypto was new, there was no way to get price for micro-coins, so I built a site doing that. I got a decent amount of traffic and got actively pursued by exchanges to put up ads for them.
In the end, I didn't really make anything, but saw the aggressive development of similar sites as we tried to outcompete each other, in a "business" where the potential profit was maybe $100/month without growing huge. A lot of similar sites don't make money and survive on donations to this day.
Finally read the article - the whole things reads like a rich guy making fun of a poor guy for even trying. "Yea, he made money, but he is still lower class, haw haw, pass the caviar." In reality, I think that's all an extension of the last paragraph, where the author projects his dislike of Chan's political views.
Anyone who thinks you can go through BUDS/RASP/RIP/Q-Course/whatever injured and "fight through it" is a delusional fanboy. The reality is that it has very little to do with willpower and everything to do with your physical condition before the course and your genetic potential.
If you get hurt, you are out, and you are checking gates for 12 hours a day or go regular infantry. Yes, there are second chances, but that's another story.
Why would they divest now all of a sudden? As far as I know most of the Chinese money went into Toronto houses anyway, though I am not sure why.
As far as SF - everyone there seems to think they will never lose money on real estate and it will pick back up within a year or two whenever it drops.
SF was weird to me - I expected it to be a huge city, and it's this town with a cool bridge, expensive park, a bunch of overpriced houses, and a scooter app which gives you a distinct map of the "bad" neighborhoods.
Pavlina is a good author, but I don't believe most of what he says - the whole spiel about how he finished college in a year while starting a video game company or whatever and how he slept 4 hrs a day while doing this. This makes me questions anything else he says.
There is another, far-less famous, far-more sane blogger like him, but I can't find his page and don't remember his name. Maybe someone here can help me out.
I have never bought this. I work out (and have for the past 15 years) from 9 - 11pm and go to sleep almost immediately after.
Maybe you are talking about initial habit formation.
For me, mornings are a horrible time to do anything. I prepare my clothing, pack my lunch, plan my day, etc at night, just to make waking up "easier", knowing that everything is laid out for me. And yes, I do wake up at a set time.
This sounds great, until you realize you still have to memorize a bunch of stuff. Random foreign words are never going to be "intuitive" to you. Neither is whatever "covalent" and "ionic". Though, sure - it's far better to understand the logic for things where it's possible.
I wanted to be special, had an illusion of being special, ended up not special, want to be special, Buddhism and other escapism is a load of crap, and here we are.
Heh. A dev at work pushed our Azure cloud key to GitHub two days ago. A day ago we got a $250,000 bill for hundreds of virtual machines running at full capacity. Silly hackers.
I am decent at chess, as in, I will generally beat any casual player and lose to any professional player. I have no feeling of "strategy" in chess. The only "strategical" difference is that I brute-force pressure newer players by moving pawns up in a diagonal and forcing them into a corner. Whereas vs good players I just do the "right" thing all the time and try to force dilemmas. At that point its just tactics the whole game.
Basically this. A bit off topic, but this is a pretty important quote to me:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
Amusingly enough, the video game example below is probably the easiest way to distinguish tactics from strategy. Are you going to rush or turtle and build up the economy/tech tree? Tactics is where exactly to hit, with what, and how.
It's highly praised here. The characters are very dry and boring to me, not sure if it's the translation. I genuinely did not care about a single one of them. Neal Stephenson did something similar as he became famous - stopped writing novels and tried to pass off his futurism as such, which is interesting, but not an exciting story. That was the case here. I can't even bring myself to read the second book.
Also, all the higher/lower dimensional space sort-of-scientific stuff is pretty speculative. Or I don't understand enough science.
In other words, my expectations were too high and I was disappointed.
Book: A Deepness in the Sky
Enjoyed this. The characters were more alive. Nothing amazing about it though, not captivated enough to read sequel.