Dwelve

What on earth makes people assume there's still huge growth possible in the information sector? We've long been at the very end of the information age and even the latest attempts to squeeze out more benefits using "big data" have failed spectacularly. Especially when it comes to actually producing physical wealth i have seen no indications at all that we can increase anything drastically with a more efficient permutation of information. For example, Let's assume AI "solves" the traveling salesman and let's assume it indeed does find a better route for the delivery guy, what kind time savings are we looking at? The 8 hour route is done in 7.5? That's not going change any society in any measurable way. The just in time industry might become even juster in time but that's about it.

It might be dated but not too long ago a report showed the effect AI had on the SAP 500 and 490 companies couldn't even find any substantial improvement. Mind you, this is during the craze, this is happening while every manager has all the incentives to use as much of the technology as possible, lest they be the one that missed out on the new steam engine. All of these companies invested heavily in cars because none of them wanted to be stuck using horses while everyone else drives off into the sunset... yet most of them didn't manage to measurably outrun the people on horses. That's not the prediction I would have made if I were switching from horses to cars.

Can you elaborate how you and your brother compare in sports?

I never knew this game was so amazing. Guess I gotta play it after all

Alternatively, we just can't accept that we might not solve ourselves. People are understandably desperate trying to find an explanation for everything, but can't admit that's just not ever going to happen.

Shouting random things is not the same as lacking the cognitive capacity to EVER learn to tie your shoes. How on earth are you making that comparison?!

"Science overcomes nature" is one of the most boring, unthoughtful, cliché stories people can write. No, science does not do that. At best you can say progress makes fighting nature a little easier, but wes sure as hell are not going to "overcome nature" - ever. Your desire to "overcome nature" IS nature. It's absolutely paradoxical to overcome it, you're just doing what nature tells you to do, lol.

Why not both?

A certain degradation of excitement is inevitable but there are countless opportunities you haven't taken yet and challenges that will give you meaning. "Excited about technologies" is an issue that was bound to happen, considering how overpromising every single new innovation is sold. At some point we do learn our lesson and understand the actual difference this new piece of hardware is going to have on our life will be minimal. If you're looking for new things to grab and hold your attention I highly advice to not keep looking in the same place you've been standing at for the longest time.

It does sound like you've worked a lot, and probably also with computers, so you probably should try to find challenges in other fields, mainly sports. Run a marathon, do some climbing, get in the best shape of your life - it is utterly impossible to not feel ecstatic whenever you beat your own records. Also, sounds like starting a family would give you a tremendous benefit. Once you have kids the question about "feeling lost" doesn't even come up (probably because the kids won't let you think enough about that :P)

I'm 32 and I basically did not exist throughout my 20s but now I'm in better shape than I've ever been before, interact with people more than I ever did before and make new experiences on a regular basis.

Your agitation does not belong on HN either, yet here it is.

Why are you pretending this is a difficult issue to understand, it very clearly isn't. You're making up random assertions that fit your own predetermined perspective. Everybody that makes money on Youtube or Twitter or Spotify agreed to certain terms. And these terms say they can be deplatformed. So yes, the artist getting displaced based on ethnicity and the anti-war opinion getting banned is exactly the same thing. And it seems you think this is justifiable as long as a spread sheet says it's profitable to do so.

I'm not opening a discussion here, there is nothing to discuss. I'm simply following your own logic to it's conclusion. Your input is not necessary in any of this.

And they obviously didn't work in Germany, France, USA, Canada, England, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Austria, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and so on.

Edit: 1.1 Argentina 1.2 Australia 1.3 Austria 1.4 Bangladesh 1.5 Cambodia 1.6 Canada 1.8 Denmark 1.9 Fiji 1.10 France 1.11 Ghana 1.12 India 1.13 Indonesia 1.13.1 Large-scale social restrictions 1.13.2 Community Activities Restrictions Enforcement 1.14 Iran 1.15 Ireland 1.16 Italy 1.17 Malaysia 1.18 Myanmar 1.19 Namibia 1.20 Nepal 1.21 Netherlands 1.23 Nigeria 1.24 Pakistan 1.25 Philippines 1.26 Russia 1.27 Singapore 1.28 South Africa 1.29 Thailand 1.30 United Kingdom 1.31 United States 1.32 Vietnam

Did people in countries that did not do a lockdown fail to get immediate care for their heart attacks because the hospitals were overwhelmed?

Thankfully we have control groups in Sweden and Florida, so you can prove your point in a very simple way by showing me the increased heart attack deaths in both those places.

Did that happen in all countries that didn't do a lockdown?

You don't have to pretend this is about truth or accuracy. We have countless examples, literally hundreds if not thousands of people in the MSM media deliberately lying and repeating provable false bullshit. Rachel Maddow pretended Trump was installed by Putin, she said Ivermectin ODs keep gunshot victims waiting outside of hospitals, she said the vaccines will stop the spread of the virus. None of these things are even remotely true but she doesn't have to correct ANY of them.

The motivation behind those actions aren't a desperate attempts to seek truth in a chaotic environment, but people with trying to dominate others.

So if it's profitable for Youtube and Twitter to push for a war and ban all dissenting voices you wouldn't feel there's a need to discuss whether or not that's a good thing, you'd instead have an argument about whether or not private companies should be able to do that?

There are far more interesting issues at hand and if you pretend this is a discussion about the legalities of this behaviour instead of a question about where idiotic self-harming nonsense like this leads our society you're being deliberately obtuse.

Name a single MSM person or outlet and I'll give you ten stories that were objectively speaking misinformation that led to far more severe consequences than anything Joe Rogan has done. Which one do you want? The "Russian bounty" story? The "Ivermectin ODs keep shot people waiting outside" story? How about the "WMD" thing? Go ahead, let's see how Joe Rogan's latest monkey story compares to that.

TL;DR: People enjoy Joe Rogan because he's having simple conversations without pretending to have all the answers. Meanwhile the entire MSM, from Rachel Maddow to James Clapper has deliberately lied to their audience to push for wars and escalations. If you want to start cancelling, start there.