bumby

Not the OP, but we have limited attention bandwidth. For everything the person advocated we spend our attention currency on (additional podcast information, location information, etc.) we are removing it from something else. It’s not that any of that is bad per se, it’s that attention is a zero sum game and we should be cognizant of where we spend it.

I think describing it as horrendous is overdoing it. People have lived even more disconnected from devices except for the last 20-30 years and I wouldn’t call their existence “horrendous”

I think people discount a lot of the upsides of the parts they are trying to “optimize” out of life.

To your maps example, some of my best road trips are not “optimized” but take two lane roads that are out of the way. Some of my favorite trips involve coming across places we came across by sheer happenstance. I also think boredom is the cocoon of creativity. But we have all but eliminated it from our lives when we constantly have a screen within arms reach.

>should be expected to solve 99% of their tasks

I largely agree with the main idea in the post, but would push back on this.

As I’ve gotten older, I notice a large proportion of tasks can be chalked up to busywork. Not in the sense that they aren’t real bugs, but they’re not fixing root causes of problems.

To your point about process, there may be a hundred tasks that stem from poor repents management or poor testing process etc. There will likely continue to be many bugs until that root process issue gets fixed. To that end, those root problems generally take much more work to solve.

So, yes, many tasks can be done quickly unless you’re doing true root cause analysis.

So your saying authority is usually necessary to make large groups run well

Do you think that is what u/pluc was doing?

People always retort this. Just change it to $3k in stock, or whatever. It isn’t usually meant to be taken literally, it’s just a reference point for his differential level of wealth.

It’s like saying Usain Bolt would run a 2:30 mile at his 100m pace. Yes, we know that’s impossible but it’s an interesting way to conceptualize how ridiculously fast he is.

Humans have an inherent loss aversion. Meaning they are more fiercely protective over what they already have above and beyond the rational value.

My past analogy for me overly protective policies was hypothesizing IBM stock was given to all Americans. This would create a public incentive to create anti-competitive policy to protect that company. I fear this move goes beyond mere superficial public support.

>It's genuinely a simple task

Eh…like the saying goes “there are levels to this sh*t”

If you just want to play around as a hobbyist, sure, it can be treated as a simple task. But if you’re working on, say, space avionics it is much more detailed and complex.

I think that depends on your perspective of work, and what constitutes value of work.

Do you think all jobs of equal moral value? I think most people feel that some work is more "humanizing" than others

Even if machines could do it, it doesn’t mean they could do it at or below the equivalent cost.

I also disagree with the automation point regarding what humans should do. As we see with current AI, many creative tasks can be automated but it doesn’t make them unfulfilling human endeavors.

I’m curious where you get the estimate that humans hold “like four” parameters in their mind at once?