Is it true? Even on a small scale, when I taught kids how to swim for $20k/year I believe I did more for society than when I built systems to help a large streaming service deliver ads for $100k/year. There are certainly exceptions, but in general money comes from extracting value from others, while jobs that provide to society are not extractive and this pay less.
This is fundamentally wrong. If Elon created Tesla and made ~$100B of wealth from it, he also made all the other shareholders richer by way more. Not only that - the world now has Teslas it otherwise wouldn't. Everyone wins and there is no extraction of values (old Marxist jargon that needs to go away).
That's all good if you assume people can't be tricked (tricked into paying more, tricked into buying something they don't want, tricked into working harder). The tricked person ends up with less and Elon ends up with more.
Yeah sorry I was thinking about value as more about quality of life and society. If you define it as shareholder value and producing stuff, then by definition corporations and their executives are of course contributing the most.
I'm not sure. There's value from teachings, but there's a certain type of wisdom that only comes from lived experience. Kind of like in software development - a new grad can read Designing Data Intensive Systems and memorize all the answers for "design Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc." interview questions, but someone who actually built a platform with millions of users is going to have a different level of understanding. In my life, I can say that no amount of learning from others prepared me for what I learned about myself during my first relationship.
All the more reason to start earlier, so you have more lived experience on the job by your mental peak at 22. Instead your lived experience is playing Halo or something like that by that point. Or wasting time flipping burgers. Wish I could have dumped all the hours I did in restaurant work in highschool into research. The door was shut though until I got into undergrad even though I was a hard worker and could have picked it up then. A lot of parallels between food service and lab work, I learned after the fact.
Ah if you look at it from the perspective of doing research or other deep intellectual work by 22, I can see your point. Certainly if that is the peak of human mental capability (not something I can argue for or against but I'll take it as true) you ideally would pursue a focused education up to that point that allows you to dive deep into a challenging problem. IMO this is different from wisdom however, and in fact pursuing the variety of experiences and interactions with others that you need to build wisdom will distract from the focus on your research subject.
>fact pursuing the variety of experiences and interactions with others that you need to build wisdom will distract from the focus on your research subject.
I'm not saying go into the cave and toil. You would still do all the stuff you do socially. Just your academic and professional subject matter would be tailored like it is when you reach undergrad and drop certain subjects in favor of your specialty. You still socialize a ton as a researcher in undergrad and grad school and beyond. Research is very much a collaborative effort too, unlike a lot of jobs or academic learning up to that point. That being said I don't think some magic threshold is reached with that when you reach 32 vs 22. Some people famously lack any social skills all their life. Some people are socialable straight out of the womb. This isn't a linear process.
I feel like taking issue with a word, even when used in a perfectly valid situation, is something worth reflection. Like fair enough if you've heard problematic used in ways you disagree with before, but maybe respond to those comments, not one where you agree with its use. Unless you actually do mean to defend Musk and don't think lying to investors, calling people pedos for saving kids, delaying public infrastructure, doing Nazi salutes, etc. etc. is problematic.
The greatest philosophers are rarely the wealthiest people. Wealth generally comes from being presented with opportunities, putting in the work to make the most of those opportunities, and being lucky enough that they end up being good. Intelligence can be an asset here, but bigger assets are knowing people already in positions of power, already having resources you can leverage, and being willing sacrifice years of your life in pursuit of wealth. Those factors don't require you to be well reasoned, logical, or intelligent.
At my workplace, HR addressed RTO and said that even when people aren't working together, just seeing people around invigorates them. Kind of demeaning to think that part of my pay comes from HR enjoying seeing the back of my head while I'm hunched over my laptop.
You convey tone through word choice and sentence structure - trying to convey tone through casing or other means is unnecessary and often just jarring.
Like look at the sentence "it has felt to me like all threads of conversation have veered towards the extreme and indefensible." The casing actually conflicts with the tone of the sentence. It's not written like a casual text - if the sentence was "ppl talking about this are crazy" then sure, the casing would match the tone. But the stodgy sentence structure and use of more precise vocabulary like "veered" indicates that more effort has gone into this than the casing suggests.
Fair play if the author just wants to have a style like this. It's his prerogative to do so, just as anyone can choose to communicate exclusively in leetspeak, or use all caps everywhere, or write everything like script dialogue, whatever. Or if it's a tool to signal that he's part of an in-group with certain people who do the same, great. But he is sacrificing readability by ignoring conventions.
What matters is content, not communication. They could build a platform to chat with each other, but they could just use WhatsApp or text or email for that. But they can't build a platform with an infinite stream of targeted content (until AI generates content I guess).
Not if there's no reputation. If you see someone liked your post and then you go check out their posts, or if people recognize commenters and remember things about them, then it's social. Think engaging with friends on Facebook or participating in a hobby forum. But there's nothing social about engaging with a popular Reddit post or some celebrity's Twitter feed.
Yeah that's really the issue with all social media. If you restrict yourself to just checking what friends post on Facebook, or what people you subscribe to post on YouTube, those platforms are pretty healthy too. It's when you go to the infinite content feed that sites become an issue.
How are you using it? I'm curious if you hit the limit so quickly because you're running it with Claude Code and so it's loading your whole project into its context, making tons of iterations, etc., or if you're using the chat and just asking focused questions and having it build out small functions or validate code quality of a file, and still hitting the limit with that.
Not because I think either way is better, just because personally I work well with AI in the latter capacity and have been considering subscribing to Claude, but don't know how limiting the usage limits are.
