From what I know - There are two sister groups, the Archae and Bacteria. Their ancestor would be LUCA. The first Archae would be the archaeal ancestor. There should be a first bacteria to match that.
For now, it is still not certain whether Archaea is the sister group of all Bacteria, or only of one branch of Bacteria.
There are some very important differences between Archaea and Bacteria, in membrane composition and in the nucleic acid replication and protein synthesis mechanisms, but there are several hypotheses about how these differences could have evolved and there is not enough evidence yet to be sure which of them is true, i.e. whether the distinctive membranes, ribosomes and certain enzymes of Archaea have never been like those of Bacteria, or they have evolved from those of Bacteria.
The eukaryotes are hybrids, mainly between some Archaea and some bacteria (the ancestors of mitochondria). It is not completely certain whether the ancestor of the eukaryotes from Archaea belonged to a branch that was sister to all still existing Archaea or only of one branch of Archaea, but here the evidence makes it very likely that the ancestor of the eukaryotes belonged to an interior branch that was nested within the existing Archaea, i.e. it was sister to only one branch of the present Archaea.
In the history of life, there have been many events of hybridization between very distant living beings, so the tree of evolution is only approximately a tree, while actually being a more general directed graph. A part of these events have been the results of symbiosis, the most frequent cases being of symbiosis with some phototrophic organism able to capture solar light or with some bacteria able to consume some unusual substance from the environment.
Other such hybridization events have been with viruses, when the genes for some enzymes have been transferred permanently from viruses to their hosts and they have been retained, presumably for being better than the versions used by the hosts for the same function, previously. Even vertebrates and humans have a small fraction of their genome that originates from viruses.
Having a great hand axe might be more analogous to the boy with the “bitchin Camaro” to attract the girls. Or more recently, performance in a street takeover.
I've been using the Claudi.ai website for a project and that is pretty much what I do, though I have uploaded all of the source files to Claude so I only need to upload anything that I changed. I don't need to reupload the whole code base each time, of course. Claude provides a zip file of any changed files that I download and copy to my code file system.
Then practice keeping your phone in your pocket for increasingly long periods of time. You may need to build up to this and to develop some level of control.
It can be at first until you get used to it. You can observe your surroundings, make up stories about what is happening. Ask yourself questions. Listen to yourself.
This is a bit like excercise. When you first start, 30 minutes of exercise can be torture as your is out of shape and not used to the effort. Keep doing it and it feels better and you feel better.
Work on becoming a source of thoughts rather than a consumer of thoughts.
> You can observe your surroundings, make up stories about what is happening.
I had to sit still a lot as a child, since I wasn't allowed to have friends or go anywhere. I read a lot, but a lot of the time I was to tired or bored to read, so I'd just defocus my eyes, and disappear into my imagination. It would look like I'm reading, so I wouldn't get punished. In hindsight I'm not sure it's terribly healthy, as I now find it impossible to put up with boring people (which is basically everybody who has time to sit around chatting, almost by definition).
> I now find it impossible to put up with boring people (which is basically everybody who has time to sit around chatting, almost by definition).
You're being judgemental to call them boring. Plus widening your opinions to be a "definition" sounds like an unhealthy worldview. You likely appear boring to others.
Then again I have a saying I use when anyone says they are bored - I say they are boring!
> Then again I have a saying I use when anyone says they are bored - I say they are boring!
This is a very clever come back, I wonder if it might qualify as the best thought terminating cliché I've seen this year!
I never say I'm bored. The universe is too interesting a place to be bored. I did mean it, that most people, individually, are what I find boring. I'd rather withdraw into my mind and work on something interesting, whether it's about figuring something out, or trying to design something. The painful part is pretending to care long enough to get away without somebody getting butthurt.
The "almost by definition" is that the people I find interesting are usually busy doing interesting things, so the boring ones are the only regular people at social gatherings. I do not go to those anymore.
> I wonder if it might qualify as the best thought terminating cliché I've seen this year!
That is certainly the best back-handed compliment I have received in the last hour. Thank you. Your writing molests me.
> is that the people I find interesting are usually busy doing interesting things, so the boring ones are the only regular people at social gatherings.
That comes across to me as a refreshingly honest self-centred view.
You recall me of a friend who does contemporary dance as part of a troupe. I find them interesting - however I also find sewage plants and stink beetles interesting.
What's I'm trying to say is that finding people interesting (or boring) probably says more about you than it does about them.
The smartest people I know seem to be interested in everything. I often find people interesting for reasons I would find difficult to admit to them. I'm not that smart.
I find myself boring - contemptuous through familiarity?
> I'd rather withdraw into my mind and work on something interesting
Be careful that there are social penalties for behaving like that way. When people smell an air of arrogance, they implicitly punish you.
I recommend to trick yourself into believing that people around you are worth your time. Even if it's not really true. Even if it makes you die a little inside. Just try to make it work.
And when the opportunity comes to get rid of those people from your life, grab that chance with all your heart.
I have a feeling I had a similar childhood to you (strict/smothering).
I also find it problematical to deal with people who live 'normal/standard' lives who are not curious about the world and how everything works. Being put in a conversation talking about sports, gossip, celebrities is intolerable for me.
I've come to accept (and I think some people here may resonate with) that this is can be a blessing or good filtering mechanism.
People talk about this with exercise and I’ve never understood it. As someone who has exercised continuously for years - it has never gotten better.
Which, to me, makes sense because you’re supposed to always be pushing yourself. You’re not supposed to ever feel comfortable or feel better from it. You should always feel shitty because if it doesn’t hurt then you’re probably not making optimal development.
The only thing I ever “feel” good about is purely a mental thing. Eg I hit a new PR (progress), didn’t skip a lift (perseverance), or whatever. The act of exercising itself is always painful and it’s why I always dread it.
Wanting to "make optimal development" is just one of possible motivations for exercising and not everyone who does it is interested in that. Maintaining good health and generally wanting to feel better across the day are also perfectly valid reasons to exercise.
You gotta give yourself a bit more slack. We all deserve to rest and go slow now and then. What's the point of living if you can't take a break?
We are chaotic and beautiful bundles of dozens of trillions of cells that evolved over 4 billion years. We breath. We feel. We are alive. We aren't math problems that need to be "solved" or "optimized".
> Which, to me, makes sense because you’re supposed to always be pushing yourself. You’re not supposed to ever feel comfortable or feel better from it. You should always feel shitty because if it doesn’t hurt then you’re probably not making optimal development.
You are way too demanding of yourself my friend :(
> if it doesn't hurt then you're not making optimal development
this is almost certainly wrong - 100% balls to wall training will surely be suboptimal (on avg) to achieving most fitness goals - eg within a running training block there will generally be recovery and "general aerobic" runs which are easy in effort relative to the harder work in the block. These easy efforts are necessary to optimally achieve the desired physiological adaptations acquired through increased volume and "nailing" the hard workouts. The easier runs enable this by getting volume at lower risk of injury + conserving energy/will for the key workouts.
This also doesn't consider how important recovery is to optimal results (as in sleep, rest, self-care etc).
Exercising is doing some activity that is good for your health. You’ve reduced this to some narrow set of activities that presumably make you stronger, faster, or better at some other easy to measure metric. I assure you it’s easy to enjoy exercising if your incentive is longevity and simply healthy living by a more subjective metric
I finally started getting stronger in the gym when I stopped going to failure on everything. I got in the best endurance shape by going on a steady comfortable pace for progressively longer periods of time.
One of my favorite styles of weight training is volume based. The premise starts with something like I need 10 reps of a certain weight, but it doesn't matter how many sets it takes to get there. Each set ends if I cannot do another perfect rep. If I can't do a single perfect rep, then the exercise ends and I move on to the next thing. By requiring the rep to be perfect, it naturally keeps you from going to failure and lowers chance of injury.
There's more to it like how to pick the weight, etc... but the perfect rep piece I really enjoyed.
I'd point out that at least in aerobic exercies (ie running and biking) its generally recommended that you shouldn't be pushing too hard for most of your workouts. If you're going out four days a week it's only on one or two of them that you're generally supposed to push yourself. The others should be at an easier pace. Which I tend to find more enjoyable.
There's also something to be said for seasons of maintaining a level of fitness rather than pushing for the next level!
It seems very likely to me that the sensations experienced during exercise are highly variable among individuals.
I say this because my experience is very different from yours: I get a very perceptible "high" once I get into the rhythm of a good workout. Think mild euphoria, mood lift, and general feeling of "rightness" in my body once it's been well wrung.
This only happens if I'm in decent shape, though. If I've fallen out of shape it's a slog.
Edit: I can't remember the podcast, but I recall some discussion of emerging clinical evidence in exercise response variability along many dimensions that may help explain the disconnect.
A friend told me he was addicted to running because he literally got high from it. I said, running hurt for me. He said it used to for him too. I asked how long until it stopped hurting. He said 2 YEARS!!!!
There's no way I'm going to run for 2 years on the hope that one day it will stop hurting and get enjoyable.
I love working out and have for over 25 years. You should never be in real pain or feel 'shitty'. It should be challenging of course and part of that challenge is being uncomfortable. Learning to embrace being uncomfortable, IMO, is one of the super powers of being a person that translate to all other areas of life. Once a person learns to embrace uncomfortable moments, everything else just becomes...easier.
Maybe your exercise can be to direct your thoughts elsewhere. Start with 5 minutes instead of 30 and actively try to think about something else when your thoughts become too negative. I can't guarantee it will help you but it's a sort of meditation that's worked for me when I felt like my brain wouldn't turn off.
Time to find support that you trust and face whatever is going on under the hood.
For me, the three major turning points were quitting my job, later starting somatic therapy with the right therapist, and then finally getting diagnosed with ADHD. Good luck to you :) wish you the best
> Work on becoming a source of thoughts rather than a consumer of thoughts.
This is the classic “sounds deep but actually means nothing” vague statement that’s only meant to massage one’s ego and try to reenforce an unsubstantiated idea in a faux-philosophical way.
You are always “sourcing” thoughts even when “consuming”.
Being able to sit still, quietly without having to stimulate oneself is, by all means, exactly that: avoid stimulating oneself. Looking around and trying to come up with small stimulations based on your surrounding is merely replacing one object (say, your phone) with another.
Yep. Chrome's mindshare and momentum is incredibly difficult to overcome, and outside of technology-oriented circles users generally don't develop associations between specific programs and poor battery life unless it gets the fans blaring like you're running Cyberpunk 2077 with setting cranked to max or something.
It's similar to how the overwhelming majority of people driving cars aren't going to make note of the difference in driving dynamics between CVT and automatic transmissions unless one severely underperforms compared to the other. It either runs or it doesn't and that's where the distinction ends for people who treat their car/computer/phone as an appliance.
Current news media is even more narrowly focused on the three hot news stories of the day with 24-hour repetitive commentary all funneled into the narrative of the day.
