glofish

Re: extremely lavish

Is probably extremely boring - I have never had more fun than when solving problems, life without working on something interesting sounds insufferable to me

How long would I be able to sit on Maui sipping Mai-Tais? Getting massages, ... and more ... whatever I want, whenever I want it ... that is a curse actually.

Surrounded by fake people everyone wanting a piece of the wealth trickle down to them.

On a personal experience, I was a lot happier when I bought my first house, a rundown estate that was the cheapest on the street that then I had to work to improve upon it, ended up replacing most inside and out, some parts I learned to do myself - I ended up remodeling it piecemeal but so, so satisfying

My second house is very respectable, newer, larger, technically incomparably better, it is not even the same ballpark ... yet my new house never provided me with the same joy.

Be careful what you wish for.

I believe that the author misremembers the common solution for the first question

> 3 hens lay 3 eggs in 3 days. How many eggs do 12 hens give in 12 days?

> [...] When we got to it, everybody shouted "Three!"

I don't see why the "common" wrong answer would be 3. Why would anybody think that? The problem looks like this 3, 3 -> 3

When we see the 12 and 12 the intuitive, common, wrong answer should be 12 eggs.

That's what makes sense IMHO.

I am trying to read the numbers but not sure I can validate whether the title is true or not.

The post is going to be great in figuring out who is reading the content and who is just "reacting"

Of course that everyone can be conned,

but smart people are more resistant - for the mere fact that they probably know more and are better versed in the goings of life -

I am surprised that anyone would think otherwise.

Millions of dollars flow to an organization headed by a convicted fraudster ... rest assured there are much more efficient ways to divert those funds than workshops

If anything the workshops are legit front.

It is because the person is evidently a con-man.

So it is not as much "interesting" but "illuminating" that supposedly smart people like scientists can be just as easily mislead as the random person responding to an email scam.

Almost certainly is all about money.

How would you know how the millions of dollars sent to the organization are being spent?

For starters he is impersonating another director of the organization - right there probably pulling in two leadership salaries for a start. How many other fake employees are there?

Then he is most likely the sole decider on how that money is spent ... the article shows that he is a convicted grifter that spent time in jail for fleecing people ...

First the argument that we failed to automate it hence it is expensive is feels specious.

But let's accept it at face value. And now take it all the way. Suppose you reject 15 papers for every single one accepted.

And suppose that accepted pays $3K

So what costs $200 per rejection?

What is that work that you need to put in that adds up to costing $200 per rejection? Or $300 or $500?

In my experience at least half (if not more) of the rejections come right from the editorial desk ... someone spending 5 minutes with the paper.

how about the current era, where every human generates thousands of photos per year ... is that a history worth remembering and will it help where we've come from?

I am not saying to not study history, I am saying storing everything is probably worse than storing half of it.

> Also it's a weird idea that we should forget things so that someone later can feel special when they do it again. Really weird.

What would you think of a service, that when you take a photograph that is beautiful, unique and moving for you and say you want to share it with someone else - would pop in and would should an image just like it - only a better with some additional elements that make it even more breathtaking - taken by someone else and would recommend you to send that

wouldn't you prefer to have your own emotions?

Imagine that Mona Lisa was lost shortly after its creation ... do you think we would not have something else like Mona Lisa in its place?

Society created the value of Mona Lisa out of nothing. It is not such a unique thing - there are tens of thousands of paintings that could be just as valuable.

It is the safest bet for someone you don't know much about.

Much above reliability (that everyone wants) with tradeoffs (that we are unable to judge for others)

Remembering the past does not mean remember every single pointless thing.

Lots of things in the past were not worth the paper they were printed on.

Is it really a big deal that some really old movies are lost ... sorry but I just don't see why ...

I wish lots of content disappeared - in the past the passage of time was a way to filter for quality, because we only bothered to preserve something worth preserving.

Forgetting is also a gift - it is is foolish to think that you have to preserve everything.

I think it is a much bigger problem that too much of today's photos and videos are preserved.

Every phenomenal photo of a sunset takes away the future generation's credit when recreating an identically phenomenal sunset.

The current archival processes are something so radically new, we don't yet understand how it shapes society.