I guess this supports a vague belief that I have held for decades: it is really difficult to rank the intelligence of people who are smarter than you
Through work I had the privilege of being around lots of people who were smarter than me, but if somebody asked me to rank them from "somewhat smarter" to "much smarter", I would have had a hard time.
Just an anecdote! I don't have any hard evidence.
I also wondered for many years why most of them didn't quit their jobs when on paper they would have been able to do so, but work is not a great place to ask those sorts of questions.
I think this might not be true though. This is like saying a marathon runner can walk like an amputee using a prosthetic.
Just like anyone else with a disadvantage, people who aren't that smart develop diverse compensatory strategies to work around their intellectual limitations, and these can look very different from popular caricatures of "dumb guy". A stupid person is not as simple as a smart person might imagine.
But by talking to them you can tell. It doesn’t matter if they made a ton of money selling real estate or whatever or have lovely personality traits or… let me know if I’m missing something. You can still tell by talking to them, because the structure and detail of a smarter person’s thought process is impossible to fake*. If you are similarly smart you can mirror their structure in your head, but if you are not you will just think they are saying something weird or confusing. Whereas there is nothing stopping a smarter person from simplifying their thought process when communicating, or filtering out thoughts they don’t think will be understood by the listener. Extremely smart people can get very good at this if they are well socialized.
It's funny to imagine that's the reason why "aliens invading us" or "AI taking over" are finally defeated at the end of a movie with a really stupid trick.
Yeah no I totally agree. I feel like I have a strong sense of a person's intelligence and their psychological capacity/abilities. I just passively look for it or analyze it in my interactions with them. But, if I don't myself have a grasp of the subtle abstract layers of complexity "above" a certain level, I can't evaluate another person's strengths in those areas, so I can't sense where they sit compared to others (or myself)!
I also think the more you know about things, the more you can see how well other people have integrated those things into their own psyche and how they employ those things, if that makes sense. Two people might both know a certain physics principle but one may elicit a far deeper and insightful employment of that knowledge than the other, even in casual situations.
Always thought of this as two cars driving faster than you on the road. After a certain distance it's clear both are faster than you, but really hard to say which one is the fastest.
>I also wondered for many years why most of them didn't quit their jobs when on paper they would have been able to do so, but work is not a great place to ask those sorts of questions.
Because they're smart enough to know neither money nor leisure is not the be all end all...
Are we talking of steel-cut oats here? The glycemic index for steel-cut oats is moderate. Instant oats, on the other hand, raise your blood glucose very rapidly.
> Spiritual equivalent of a life sciences forum discovering memory safety, one person who wrote code for a bit saying they wrote a memory bug in C once, then someone clutching pearls about why programmers irresponsibly write memory unsafe code given it has a global impact.
I used to be a code monkey, I wrote systems software at megacorps, and still can't understand why so many programmers irresponsibly write memory unsafe code given it has a global impact.
That's the analogy working as intended: the answer to "why do programmers still write memory-unsafe code" is the same shape as "why do microplastics researchers still wear gloves." The real answer is boring and full of tradeoffs. The HN thread version skips to indignation: "they never thought of contamination so ipso facto all the research is suspect"
(to go a bit further, in case it's confusing: both you and I agree on "why do people opt-in to memunsafe code in 2026? There’s no reason to" - yet, we also understand why Linux/Android/Windows/macOS/ffmpeg/ls aren't 100% $INSERT_MEM_SAFE_LANGUAGE yet, and in fact, most new written for them is memunsafe)
The implication is that if you spent 30yrs as an ambulance driver, followed by 10 years working retail, the death certificate will say "ambulance driver."
Agreed with the title and some of the broad sentiment, but two things stood out.
> I can't delegate my capacity to sit with someone when they're confused or scared or just need to feel known
Plenty of people rely on therapists and/or chat bots to listen to them. Not everybody feels comfortable burdening their friends and family with their problems.
> We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to
There is a trade-off between social services in a broad sense and the ability to pay for them. The stronger the social safety net, the more people at the margin will choose to work less, earn less, make less of an effort. In turn, the tax base becomes smaller, and thus unable to maintain those same social services.
For example, the vast majority of people choose to retire once they reach the age where they are able to collect enough from their pension that they no longer need to work in order to get by. If we lowered the age of eligibility by a year, most people would retire a year earlier. Just like we see people retiring later in countries that have moved the eligibility to the age of e.g. 67.
With this I am not advocating to increase or decrease the current social safety net in whichever region you, dear reader, are living. I am simply pointing out some of the real-world effects of moving the needle in one direction or another.
Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far. Where exactly we place the needle varies from place to place, obviously. Thinning the social safety net too far also has massive societal and economic consequences.
>For example, the vast majority of people choose to retire once they reach the age where they are able to collect enough from their pension that they no longer need to work in order to get by
Part of the problem is that the current system doesn't provide a great way to taper off, at least not by default. I suspect there would be a lot more people who'd keep working if it was simple to get a comparable job at 30 hours per week 25 weeks out of the year. But for those who are traditionally employed instead of contracting, the choice is often between full time or nothing.
> Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far.
What rich country are you talking about? Most developed countries have elected to have social safety nets, and that includes the US to some extent. "Caring for everyone" in your message looks like some form of utopia where no one would have to work, but that has never been advocated anywhere.
Also what does "we" mean in that context? To me, it looks like you’re passing your opinion as a well-accepted fact.
> "Caring for everyone" in your message looks like some form of utopia where no one would have to work, but that has never been advocated anywhere.
Have you never met an advocate for UBI? How do you interpret OP's "We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to" in its context?
> Also what does "we" mean in that context
Voters. Voters have collectively decided, in all developed countries, to strike a balance between having a social net that gives people some minimum assurances while maintaining strong incentives to work. This is in opposition to OP's "We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to". I am trying to explain that there are good reasons why we do that; it is not a moral failure.
UBI is based on the idea that some people will still want/need to work. It is not related to freeing people from work, but to ensure that people's basic needs (housing, food, health) are met even if, for some reason, they are unable to work. Usually, UBI proponents claim the main difference between UBI and the current nets is that it would simplify the administrative control structure.
The intent of UBI (make sure everyone has their basic needs met) isn't different from the current safety nets. And, of course, since shit has to be made in order to be consumed, UBI requires people to keep working.
> Voters. Voters have collectively decided, in all developed countries [...] I am trying to explain that there are good reasons why we do that; it is not a moral failure.
It's not a once for all choice, though. Safety nets in all countries have evolved gradually, and are still evolving. Opposing yesterday's voter choices to today or tomorrow's activist hopes is a misunderstanding of the way democracy works. Every choice voters have made about social nets in the past happened because someone started saying "we have the means to do this, why shouldn't we do it?"
> The tax base shrinks but does company revenue shrink?
Capital is highly mobile globally. As corporate taxation becomes higher in a region, production in that region becomes less competitive globally. Companies, in turn, outsource their production elsewhere.
It is not a simple problem to solve. There are good reasons why the status quo is what it is.
Bicycles have had gears for almost a century, and they allow to tackle hilly areas easily. Also, the Netherlands is notoriously windy, and a headwind is just as difficult as a hill.
No, what makes the Netherlands different is their street design prioritizing safety rather than speed at all costs. When the streets feel safe from speeding drivers, more people choose to ride a bike.
Not at all. I simply suspect that you are uninformed about why cycling is popular in the Netherlands. In the 60s the Netherlands was just as flat as it is today, but it wasn't a cycling paradise. It all changed with the campaign "Stop de Kindermoord" (literally translated as "Stop the Child Murder"), which began in 1972.
As a pedestrian I would hope that those cyclists remember when they’re pedestrians too. Both can kill you easily. But cars don’t sneak up on you silent from behind when you’re on a sidewalk.
Have you looked at any actual data about the rate at which drivers and cyclists kill people in your area? Can you even find news about the last time a cyclist killed a pedestrian in your city?
Because I keep an eye on the official Police stats in Toronto and it is eye-opening. Statistically, drivers kill people, and cyclists don't. It is not even remotely close.
Just a single anecdote, but one death made the papers here last year because it was an e-bike that hit and elderly gentleman. The e-bike had been modded and the media was suggesting the cyclist faced jail time as a result. (if I remember correctly)
I don’t care about your stats. The fact is: cars move in their dedicated space. Most of them obey most of the traffic rules. Bicycles and scooters zoom past me on the sidewalk and it doesn’t make me feel safe. Neither having to jump over them on a sidewalk. I’m young, I can, but my mother cannot and it’s a problem for her. So take your stats and read them alone. Thanks, I take a car. I’m from the generation who doesn’t have their noses glued to mobile phone 24/7.
while i don't agree with your general sentiment you're right that bicycles should have their own dedicated cycle lanes. too often drivers get their dedicated lanes while pedestrians and cyclists are forced to "share space and just take care of each other".
What a ridiculous statement. Motorized vehicles are involved in the vast majority of road casualties. You are much, much more likely to die from a car accident than a bike accident.
as a former pedestrian only and bike rider for the last 5 years, we really do have to admit that bike riders can be real assholes. whether or not the level of injury is the same, it definitely feels an unwarranted physical threat to have a biker shoot past you from behind or run you down in the crosswalk.
Do we have to admit that in this sub-thread? Your sentiment is better placed where we are not currently deriding the absurd take that "both can kill you easily". There is no recovery to be had here.
Of course there is. The world isn’t black and white. I said “could”, there are many shades of grey in between. Don’t be such an absolutist, like your truth is the truest one.
sorry, I just really don't like this glib response that while I might be unnecessarily aggressive and threaten you, its not really not a problem since the likelihood that I'll actually _kill_ you is much lower than if I were the same idiot driving a car.
Ugh... You know perfectly well from context that by "bikes" I meant "bicycles". I am making the effort of speaking in your language, please don't use these linguistic gotchas against me.
I don't know any difference between bikes and bicycles. I am also not a native English speaker. This wasn't supposed to be a linguistic gotcha, but a semantic one.
You are not making a good faith argument when you refute this person by saying this “doesn’t fit your narrative” two comments removed from you telling another person that you have no interest in their statistics because of how you feel.
You're using biased language there, which to be fair is common when people discuss RTCs.
A collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist going at around 15mph is more likely to lead to the cyclist getting more hurt and the blame is slightly more likely (something like 60%/40%) to be attributed to the pedestrian.
Whilst a lot of people are fearful of cyclists and pedestrians sharing space (often due to cyclists being quiet and passing very close), the statistics show that the actual danger comes from car drivers, even just looking at incidents on the pavement.
The thing is that cyclists have "skin in the game" and so have a disincentive to collide with anything. There are certainly idiots on bikes, but it's far better to get as many idiots as possible out of cars and onto bikes (or ideally walking) for the purpose of harm minimisation. Every idiot on a bike could be an idiot that drives.
Most collisions between cyclists and pedestrians end up with the cyclist getting more hurt. Also, the blame for collisions is slightly more attributed to pedestrians (e.g. walking across a cycle lane without looking).
As I recall, pedestrians are more likely to be killed by a driver whilst on the pavement, so whilst collisions may be more frequent with cyclists, they are extremely unlikely to lead to a KSI.
Two of my neighbors were hit and killed by a car while walking on the sidewalk. The car was going in excess of 150km/h, hit the median, and swerved back, out of control into the sidewalk.
Through work I had the privilege of being around lots of people who were smarter than me, but if somebody asked me to rank them from "somewhat smarter" to "much smarter", I would have had a hard time.
Just an anecdote! I don't have any hard evidence.
I also wondered for many years why most of them didn't quit their jobs when on paper they would have been able to do so, but work is not a great place to ask those sorts of questions.
reply