syl_sau

Some people here seem to be upset. I don't get it.

More than 40% of US adults are obese. The rates of chronic diseases are through the roof. There's obviously a systemic problem in these institutions who are tasked with the well-being of the country. We know of many fraud in social sciences (ever heard of priming research?), medical science (eg. alzheimer researchs) and nutritional science (eg. saturated fats). In fact I'd argue it has become systemically untrustworthy. Robert Kennedy Jr vowed for: (a) dedicating 20% of science funding to replication studies, (b) systemic publication of peer reviews alongside papers, (c) publication of null results. Which seems like a very good improvement over what we have now. The field is in dire need of a reform.

Am I missing something?

PS: I am not from the USA.

The good things about books is they compel you to truly engage in an argument, an idea, a conception of the world. You can't opt out easily, and that means you ought to be focused. And that's incredibly important, because quality almost always mean quantity. Not only the amount of knowledge in the average book far surpasses 90% of what's on the web, but more importantly information does not come easy, and never has. If it's easy to digest, you most likely won't remember it, which essentially makes the whole thing a loss of time. Learning takes time and reflection. If you don't do either of these you're just consuming things on a surface level: you're losing the attention war waged against your brain.

Yes, there's in fact an incentive mismatch here between the creator and the media. But it doesn't mean it wasn't there before to some extent. There are still great resources out there. So how do you spot them?

Information does not come easy, and never has. If it's easy, you most likely won't remember it, which essentially makes the whole thing a loss of time. What I would aim for is focus. This is the big difference I think. If the content is selected for its quality, I'm in. And quality almost always mean quantity. Learning takes time and reflection. If you don't do either of these you're just consuming things on a surface level.

Replace Twitter with internet forums, replace articles with books, instructional videos with real documentaries, etc. All these things call for your full attention, and that is, I believe, the most important. Paradoxically, I've found that the best "content producers" instinctively know this and don't spend much time on YT/social media.

Is this ironic ? You give the example Yglesias, one of the most famous independent journalists in the US, and litterally the first paragraph of your article is about how he turned down SBF's money:

> Several months ago, I found myself having a few mocktails and splitting vegan snacks with Sam Bankman-Fried at a restaurant near my house.1 We touched on, among other things, his proposal to create a new publication featuring writers he liked, including me.

> I declined, which obviously in retrospect was the right choice. I told him that I like my Substack just fine and make plenty of money, though he was happy to offer more. But I also told him that given the extent to which we agree on a lot of important issues, I thought it was a lot more valuable to these causes for me to maintain credibility by not accepting any of his money.

This always sounded incredibly scary to me, especially when I was in my early 20s. I guess when you're that age you don't like the idea of things having an end, you are sort of overwhelmed by a feeling of infinity, of never-ending youth.

Now I'm not even 30 but this kind of memento mori doesn't strike me as scary but as liberating. "Here's your precious, finite time in this world, and it's up to you to make it worth it." This is one of those things when knowing you're in charge makes you better, kind of how taking responsibility empowers you inside.

> The most important thing I discovered a few days after turning 65 is that I can't waste any more time doing things I don't want to do. --- Jep Gambardella, La Grande Bellezza

As someone pointed out to me recently when I argued the same thing, crypto and blockchain does have a use case: funding organizations and people through anonymous means as to circumvent the scope of the law/avoid the eyes of state or corporate authorities. This includes funding politically persecuted groups or terrorist groups as well as buying drugs or other more or less recommendable things. After all it's mostly what it's been used for so far (if we ignore speculation and various scams).

I think it's hard to argue with this.

I agree, it's probably the one use-case where it can be useful and ease the process: funding things anonymously as to circumvent the scope of the law/avoid the eyes of the authorities, far easier with Monero really. This includes funding politically persecuted individuals as well as buying drugs or other things. After all it's mostly what it's been used for (if we ignore speculation), though so far mostly through BTC and the dark web networks of obfuscation.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Jan 6th hearings (I don't really follow US news), but in my opinion it's certainly the case that politics, media and administration are the privileged domains for which the phrase "everyone is winging it all the time" makes the most sense. It's infuriating but I gather it's unlikely to be true for most other things in life which require, as the parent comment pointed out, actual expertise.

When I think of all my models, whether directors, writers, painters or engineers, they've always struck me as especially smart, and this feeling seems to always correlate with how humble they are and how old the interview I am watching is. I guess they mostly talk about the thing they do for a living. Also, I've noticed a decrease in global intelligence, and that probably makes people look much more stupid in comparison.

In fact, I don't believe expertise makes you brilliant on all fronts -- arguably, it may signify the exact opposite. Take an artist, e.g. an actor or a painter, that is someone who spends most of their time learning their own specific craft, why should we listen to their takes on things unrelated to their activities more than the average person? It makes no sense, but sometimes we hear musicians, actors, etc. give their undue opinions on various matters. And so we stumble upon the fact that they have, like most of us, no clue on most things in life, just like us. And that's okay I guess.

I agree, although it has to be noted that that you can preview most ffmpeg commands using ffplay. The syntax is the same as the ffmpeg command, without the final output filename obviously.

You've got to appreciate the irony of how an article about historical revolutionary technologies is buried under what has to be one of the most obnoxious web interface I've ever seen. And on top of all that, you realize the website is affiliated with the IEEE. This thing is not even properly printable, even with Print Friendly. I like to imagine Alan Kay stumbling upon this and what his reaction would be...