1ibsq

Normally at my desk in an office chair. Most of the time in a upright position. But since your arms and hands are free (bookrest with clamps for the pages) you can choose quite freely how to sit.

I do read a lot as well. One of my favorite purchases is also reading-related. It's the 'professional bookrest' - just a simple bookrest from wood. Could be every other really, but the bookrest has improved my reading experience greatly. Decreasing neck and back pain. Also overall more relaxing: put a book there, fixate the current page, get comfy and enjoy reading :)

I don't know.

The problem with the (any, for that matter) pandemic is, that we only have limited capabilities in the health service. If we all get sick at the same time, the system collapses and there will be drama and tragedy to an extend most of us can't comprehend. And it's simply the main goal to prevent that from happening. We have a vaccine which is clearly the best solution we have right now. So we should aim to vax as much people as we can. The remaining question is, how do we do this? Is a forced mandate this the best way to achieve this goal? I mean, we have a vaccine for about a year (?) now and everyone who's willing to get vaxxed has got the shot. How will those remaining 30% react?

Please re-read what I wrote. I said I remember it from this book. Not that he came up with it, nor that he wrote the book, nor that I am contend with the quote, nor that I like it. Neither in one direction nor in the other. I hoped this was a place on the internet where I don't have to counter every possible misunderstanding beforehand. Is this about politics? If so, let me make it clear. I like to read books written by people I disagree with. Please don't misunderstand me, following is not comparable, but I have Ayn Rand and Hitler on my shelve as well.

Probably yes, but I remember it from the book I mentioned. That's all I wanted to share.

That reminds me of a quote from Trumps 'the art of the deal', that goes something like: the receipt for success is under-promise and over-deliver.

I don't want to defend the comment you replied to, but there is obviously some nuance to the topic. Your comment makes it look like you're jumping right on the opposite side and have been rolling dice for 24 years. There is obviously some sort of substance in trading. To what degree, is the question here.

Following thought comes to my mind: Long and recurring discussions come up on complex (among others) topics. A long and recurring discussion on those topics only arises if more than one party is involved and everybody involved can contribute meaningful input - whether this is questions or answers. So you have a bunch of 'experts' discussing a topic, but here's the problem: Among those experts, who is in the position to stand above everybody else and moderates this thing? Given all participants know each other well and can sort this out, you don't have a problem. But we're talking about the internet. Who is the one sorting out what is meaningful content? What contributes to the discussion? What's necessary and what's bloated information? How to structure prior discussion? All of this has proper potential for a heated discussion on its own. But in the end someone has to have the authority.

I try to abstract the problem (as I understand it) and I see an attempt in finding a perfect system. There might be a system that does justice in treating the content of the discussion well (retrospectively) - but the human aspect of discussions ?. This reminds me of an open source project. If the participants want to treat the discussion seriously, they'd have to do serious research of what has happened until now. No room for a lighthearted quick thought, because it probably has been said earlier on. Someone would rightfully point that out, but would that lead to a healthy atmosphere and exchange of thought for all potential people? Surely in some cases and on some topics and with the right people. But in general, I'm not so sure...

I'm not cynical, but I kind of gave up on people who don't behave on the internet or are blatantly stupid. Sometimes this feels like I gave up on the internet as a whole, but I try to accept that it won't change anything whether I care or not. Things will go their way no matter if I fight it or not. So I try to ignore it. But what I want to do, is, I want to upvote more. I want to encourage people to be open with their thoughts and knowledge and create output that I think benefits more people and puts us on the right direction.

Long story short: I try to focus on what has value and encourage that behavior with upvotes and further comments.

PS: What's the required karma to downvote? I'm currently not in the position to be able to downvote anyway ^^

Edit: (1) "I'm not cynical, but ..." Well, not a good start... I try not to be, maybe I am. But I don't want to be. (2) Karma required to downvote is 500 according to another commenter

I don't know what motivates me and I find that strange. It's something I think about a lot. How do people know what they want? I can come up with (and I do that) a dense net of interests I somewhat have and how they would interconnect and what could come out of it. But at the end of the day, nothing really ever comes to life. It's obvious that one can not rationally construct such thing, but it feels real. I’m serious about what I think, but it seems to not work. I can’t remember the last time I persued an interest that in itself kept me going (other than video games). Something seems to not work and I'm currently in search for a therapist, because all of this has led me to a place that makes life not worth living. But that said, I'm as well curious (as the other commenter) what makes other people drive.

I agree with what you said, but I was wondering about a little detail you mentioned:

> The average person visits thousands of websites every year.

Is this true? Is there any data that would back this? A commonly used argument comes to my mind, that for most internet users the internet is about a handful sites...

sounds like a very healthy approach. I observed that the urge to buy new stuff is often just an excuse to not start, because the needed requirements are not set - which is often simply not true. I struggle with that a lot and it was one of the underlying reasons I asked.

Basically it’s all in the title. Nevertheless here’re some thoughts in advance. There are things constantly on our mind that we think we need or things we wish we had. This may be something to boost productivity, get in shape, that makes us feel good or maybe more essential reasons. But there is a catch. We don’t know if these things make us do or feel, like we expect them to do. We don’t know if we actually need them. It’s hard to think rationally about things we personally expect something from. Into the bargain, there are marketing agencies whose solely job is obscure our mind and make us think we disire or even need something (which we don’t). Given, you are not in the situation to buy it all and try it out, how do you decide whether you buy something or not? Any strategies, thoughts, questinos, anything to help make a more rational decision?