token_throwaway

The platforms might be the difference between crazy and crazier, but nobody is going from normal to psychotic because of YT.

"But I follow thousands of people"

I was wondering why someone would feel this way until I got to that line! Why would you follow thousands of people if "noise" bothers you? I think most people like their social media a bit more curated than that to start with, could be wrong though.

We're not doing this anymore, dude. We all agreed on that years ago.

100% - I don't think this article responsibly differentiated between the ideas of boundary-setting and control. The author (I think) actually means to say that we should try and make kids anti-fragile by letting them make choices and exploring the consequences, within healthy & safe boundaries. But anyway thanks academia for turning this ancient parenting wisdom into a whole book we can overanalyze

That's a pretty dramatic take. Social media use in general probably declines with age, and although I'm not sure how you'd quantify it, I bet that using social media primarily as a form of social proofing declines even quicker with age. All young people "perform" because their self-awareness is on extra high alert and their personalities are half-baked. This has been true since the dawn of high schools.

Please, find an example of a better system in a stronger economy.

Unfortunately people are really bad at assessing scale, so they forget that there are always going to be people who "have to" do this kind of job. Always. The goal should be to give people the choices to not end up this way. It is extremely harsh. But life is harsh. We should do what we can as a people to push equality of opportunity, but if we look for equality of outcome, we're just burying our heads in the sand re: the harshness of the world.

This job sounds shitty but have you ever spoken to someone in a domestic role? A postal employee? A trucker? A janitor at your office building? Kitchen staff at a restaurant who do not even have time to take a piss without dropping the ball, let alone timed pee breaks? Lots of jobs are hard. Extremely hard. And often, jobs that are very very hard pay hardly anything. There is a two-way transaction happening here, though - you pick a job that you are qualified for, and you work at it in exchange for money. And if it's not worth the money to you, you find a different job that you're qualified for. As long as people are willing to do this job for this amount of money, it will probably not get better unfortunately. And as companies get bigger, they always morally regress to the mean. Instead of going after companies (playing whack-a-mole), I think empowering people to learn employable skills is a better investment.

Also I'm going to remember the fuss about Amazon when their warehouses are 100% robotic, and everyone is mad that it's not creating enough jobs.

Drip is also UK slang for a boring, unimpressive person :|

You're completely right. And either way it's about $0.05 of old insight.

TL;DR: Unlike other types of leaders (eg. Presidents), good CEOs consistently set destinations, and align new people towards those destinations, but don't micromanage the means by which their team gets there. Except for some times, when they have to.

This was horribly written. Succinctness is a virtue.

Pigs flying

People have extremely naive perceptions of how taxes are used. It shocks me. The "throw tax money at it" attitude towards problems, especially in cities where people are reasonably wealthy, is very lazy.

The city already spends a ton of money on the issue - clearly the government just isn't great at putting that cash to use. So I don't think throwing more money at the problem will help. Truthfully the answers to the problem may make the situation worse before it gets better. You should look up an article by Nick Buckley, who runs an outreach service for homeless people in Manchester UK. It's obviously a different situation than SF but it piqued my interest because it's an angle you really never hear.