What does reading a great novel or starting a garden specifically accomplish? People do some things for reasons that aren't easily quantifiable. It seems to me that you are starting from the viewpoint that everything has to prove its worth before you accept it, even if millions of people before you have found it fulfilling and worthwhile, which does not seem productive.
If you had never read a book before, and someone was trying to convince you to try it, what could they point to that would fulfill all your criteria? Would it be enough to say it makes you smarter? That's not very specific. It sharpens your thinking? Makes you more empathetic? That would all seem like 'vague undecipherable gibberish' if you had no experience with it. They might resort to saying that it can connect you with a great dialogue that has been occurring for over two thousand years, but as you say, the fact that people have been doing it for thousands of years doesn't make it interesting or valuable.
Seeing a study that some part of the brain responds more quickly for up to 90 minutes after reading or that people with gardens live 0.28 years longer on average would not make me want to do those things more, because those are NOT the benefits of doing those things. You have to figure out what you're supposed to do with your one human life. Science is one tool, culture is another. Neither of them makes the other superfluous.
"Our first priority is to minimize sylliness, but I think our second priority should be to maximize silliness. And 'thirty squared twelfths' is certainly sillier."
If 1% of the last 10 billion people to live were academics and published on average 5 papers (many only had one, i.e. their dissertation/thesis, but a small fraction will have had dozens or hundreds), that comes to 500 million.
I'm curious, do you think it's an order of magnitude too low or too high?
Saying something and doing something are different. They claim it is true, but they haven't demonstrated it by doing it.
If a company says they've built the fastest car in the world, a reasonable response is "ok, let's see it drive faster than any other car can", even though they already said that it can do that.
The vast majority of readers won't get any information from anything in the article. Why not pseudonymize everything and scramble the place names? I at least appreciate that in principle, I could research the people mentioned. Romanian happens to be intelligible with diacritics removed, but I bet you'd feel differently if you read an article about Mr Ccsrtr and Em Cnr.
...yes? If I go to a website called "_ News" (present company included), I expect to see either news stories aggregated by humans or news stories written and fact checked by humans. That's why newspapers have fact checking departments, but they're being replaced by something with almost none of the utility and its proponents are framing the benefits of the old system as impossible or impractical.
His Master of Arts is in economics. His master's thesis was "Fiscal Triumvirate: Examinations of Federal Deficit Spending and Interest Rates, State-Level Taxation and Domestic Migration, and the Irrelevance of State Credit Ratings to Investors".
So his background in economics probably got him into an economics PhD program.
Well, the page starts with this in the introduction: "So here is a personal list of small ways in which my ordinary everyday daily life has been getting better since the late 1980s/early 1990s"
So on the contrary, it seems to me listing "countless improvements for Europeans" as an everyday life improvement would be an extreme overstatement of the American (?) author's empathy, or perhaps a performative indication that they think about the lives of others even when explicitly trying to focus on themself.
If Mozilla really is as shady about user data as some people think they've become, someone's about to be pretty confused about why they suddenly have hundreds of nearly-identical screenshots of this HN page on their servers
Neither I nor the author are saying that the dysfunction is beautiful, just that a country can be both dysfunctional and beautiful. I think it's a pretty extreme viewpoint to say that any dysfunction negates everything else beautiful about a country.
You can't see beauty in a country that isn't perfect? I know plenty of people who have some flaw they would probably be better off without, but I don't say "I don't see imperfect people as beautiful, and if you do it means you like to see them suffer."
Why do you jump to calling the author sadistic for finding the positive in a complicated situation?