I saw some of the excuses people were giving for that Australian lady, and they all sound like Burnt Face Man. "I may have a burnt face, but that hasn't affected my ability to fight crime!"
Appeal to authority is always fallacious because people aren't right because of "who" they are, but because they were themselves able to present a compelling argument.
We don't know general and special relativity are true because Albert Einstein came up with them and we know Albert Einstein is really smart. We know they're true because the model he created explained gaps we already had in our understanding of Newtonian physics. And he wasn't right on all things, he was wrong on a lot of quantum mechanics, so being an expert who is really smart obviously didn't make him correct all the time. At the end of the day, reality is what chooses who is correct in science, not authority.
For an example of authorities who were consensus but were also wrong, the ancient Greeks were held as high authorities on many topics and they drove the consensus, and many of the theories they presented were simply wrong -- bile theory in medicine, elemental theory in the composition of matter, many other things, they were factually incorrect and led people down the wrong path, but because they were so respected their ancient analysis was the consensus.
Epistemologically there are limits to what can be known in general, but appeals to authority can cloud this reality. "Oh, an expert said it is true, they must know" -- but a lot of things we can't know for certain until the future comes and we can see what predictions comes true and which do not.
In the media, there's actually a surprising number of times that a "doctor" says something, and later it turns out that person was a chiropractic "doctor" (something that takes a couple years study at a private institution to become and is not a licensed medical doctor) -- and so the "expert" isn't one and is just saying something the media agrees with but isn't necessarily true.
We don't know general and special relativity are true because Albert Einstein came up with them and we know Albert Einstein is really smart. We know they're true because the model he created explained gaps we already had in our understanding of Newtonian physics. And he wasn't right on all things, he was wrong on a lot of quantum mechanics, so being an expert who is really smart obviously didn't make him correct all the time. At the end of the day, reality is what chooses who is correct in science, not authority.
For an example of authorities who were consensus but were also wrong, the ancient Greeks were held as high authorities on many topics and they drove the consensus, and many of the theories they presented were simply wrong -- bile theory in medicine, elemental theory in the composition of matter, many other things, they were factually incorrect and led people down the wrong path, but because they were so respected their ancient analysis was the consensus.
Epistemologically there are limits to what can be known in general, but appeals to authority can cloud this reality. "Oh, an expert said it is true, they must know" -- but a lot of things we can't know for certain until the future comes and we can see what predictions comes true and which do not.
In the media, there's actually a surprising number of times that a "doctor" says something, and later it turns out that person was a chiropractic "doctor" (something that takes a couple years study at a private institution to become and is not a licensed medical doctor) -- and so the "expert" isn't one and is just saying something the media agrees with but isn't necessarily true.
You're not wrong, you can get 5.5% annually from a risk-free ETF that sells money to the Fed at no risk. My point was more about the diminishing value of the title "millionaire".
I don't know who needs to hear this, but a million dollars isn't really that much money. You can be a millionaire if you have a paid off house and a modest 401(k). People can do it on a blue collar wage. It doesn't happen overnight, it takes sacrifice every payday because you end up living well below your means, and a little bit of luck to invest in the right things, but it's quite doable.
I should also mention that not every blue collar job is a path to be a millionaire. If you're barely making enough to make rent, it just isn't in the cards. But there's still people working blue collar jobs wind up retiring as millionaires. Not even boomers, millennials (the oldest millennials are only in their 40s, but many are well on track to being millionaires)
So if you want to study the habits of a lot of millionaires, you're going to be looking at people who are living modestly. They are people who could be living much more extravagant lives than they do, but instead save for tomorrow. A lot of millionaires drive old beat up cars because shiny new vehicles are a waste of money. Also, a lot of millionaires are old because they've been working for a lifetime, saving for a lifetime, paying down debt for a lifetime and that's how they became millionaires.
But the other thing to remember is that every year being a millionaire means less. Just in the past few years, even if you accept the official numbers, a millionaire with exactly a million dollars in net worth is 20% poorer than they were. So it's kind of an arbitrary measure that's taking on a greater and greater portion of earners until one day a can of coke is a million dollars.
Another important point is that every 401(k) millionaire is going to be paying working class taxes for every dollar they take out of that financial instrument. Anyone telling you that they are going to magically avoid the taxes doesn't know how those taxes work.
The tax implications also mean something important for the big staters slathering over the wealth of many millionaires -- most of those millionaires will be getting taxed at normal rates for income and they'll be using it to retire not to act as sinister political forces or to exploit others -- they paid their dues (sometimes literally for union jobs) for decades and now are using their accumulated wealth to life for a few decades before they pass away (and get hit with inheritance taxes)
I should also mention that not every blue collar job is a path to be a millionaire. If you're barely making enough to make rent, it just isn't in the cards. But there's still people working blue collar jobs wind up retiring as millionaires. Not even boomers, millennials (the oldest millennials are only in their 40s, but many are well on track to being millionaires)
So if you want to study the habits of a lot of millionaires, you're going to be looking at people who are living modestly. They are people who could be living much more extravagant lives than they do, but instead save for tomorrow. A lot of millionaires drive old beat up cars because shiny new vehicles are a waste of money. Also, a lot of millionaires are old because they've been working for a lifetime, saving for a lifetime, paying down debt for a lifetime and that's how they became millionaires.
But the other thing to remember is that every year being a millionaire means less. Just in the past few years, even if you accept the official numbers, a millionaire with exactly a million dollars in net worth is 20% poorer than they were. So it's kind of an arbitrary measure that's taking on a greater and greater portion of earners until one day a can of coke is a million dollars.
Another important point is that every 401(k) millionaire is going to be paying working class taxes for every dollar they take out of that financial instrument. Anyone telling you that they are going to magically avoid the taxes doesn't know how those taxes work.
The tax implications also mean something important for the big staters slathering over the wealth of many millionaires -- most of those millionaires will be getting taxed at normal rates for income and they'll be using it to retire not to act as sinister political forces or to exploit others -- they paid their dues (sometimes literally for union jobs) for decades and now are using their accumulated wealth to life for a few decades before they pass away (and get hit with inheritance taxes)
Inertia more than anything. They seemed like a good idea back in 2002, and I tend to renew 5 years at a time so for the most part I'd just keep renewing.
[Admin mode] Quick service blip, had to move a cable and it caused us to need do a manual flip on DNS (thanks for being shite, godaddy). Not something you can see, but the physical layout is much more secure now, one of the servers that was installed temporarily was a hop skip and a jump away from taking down my entire empire of dirt. Now it's sitting in a nice secure location meaning there's one less threat (and my server farm looks a little less janky this hour)
You could probably get away with cubed up Gouda. A lot of restaurants up here will just use shredded mozzarella and call that poutine but while it's passable it's sort of a different dish.
The first thing you need to give up as a parent is your postmodern eye for looking at hidden meaning in everything you say or do.
For one, you realize that being a good parent throws death flags all over the place. Being living and attentive? Basically saying it's the last day before retirement on a cop show, you're doomed! (But you're no more doomed than anyone else, life isn't a TV show)
For another, being a parent means you're doing shit that sounds inherently sus. As a parent if youre not touching a baby's butthole on the reg you're not doing your job and it's only weird if you make it weird.
Finally, life isn't reddit you can't spend an hour thinking of the perfect thing to say, so you sometimes gotta just wing it and hope it sounds ok. You don't have time to pass everything you say through a convoluted postmodern filter to make sure it follows all the rules of subversion and deconstruction.
In some ways it's a marked improvement in your life.
For one, you realize that being a good parent throws death flags all over the place. Being living and attentive? Basically saying it's the last day before retirement on a cop show, you're doomed! (But you're no more doomed than anyone else, life isn't a TV show)
For another, being a parent means you're doing shit that sounds inherently sus. As a parent if youre not touching a baby's butthole on the reg you're not doing your job and it's only weird if you make it weird.
Finally, life isn't reddit you can't spend an hour thinking of the perfect thing to say, so you sometimes gotta just wing it and hope it sounds ok. You don't have time to pass everything you say through a convoluted postmodern filter to make sure it follows all the rules of subversion and deconstruction.
In some ways it's a marked improvement in your life.
What is causing the huge rise in autism?
I think there's several things.
According to the source I looked at, it manifests in the first 3 years of life. How many mothers in the past 25 years spent more time on ICQ or MSN messenger or Facebook or Instagram or tiktok than playing with their kids? How many babies never spent much time with their parents and went straight into a daycare with 25 other kids because both parents need to work to pay the rent and bills? Daycare isn't necessarily bad, but some are highly likely to have environments much less nurturing than parents of that child. Lacking extensive social interaction early I think will cause many neurological pathways associated with empathy and social skills to become underdeveloped early.
Second, people who might be on the spectrum but develop normally through community interactions helping to train them to be reasonably normal don't have a community to train on, so the deficit becomes permanent. Internet communities aren't a replacement for being next to someone in the flesh.
Third, although we are the least mentally healthy we've ever been as a society there's more awareness of the potential for being mentally ill, so people who would be clinically called a weirdo or a jerk in previous eras are now on a spectrum with a medical label. Doesn't solve anything, but it does mean numbers will go up even with the same number of people with it, forget about having much more people with it and also catching more people as having it.
Finally, historically we've only a few times every had parents as old as they are now, and there's been a link found between parental age and autism. While in some ways we're the best off we've ever been, our cramped living conditions, requirement to work long hours at stressful jobs (physically demanding jobs aren't necessarily the most stressful), and making too little for a parent to stay home and be a parent means there's a real crisis in parenthood which has many effects but in particular people just aren't having kids until they're much older.
I think there's several things.
According to the source I looked at, it manifests in the first 3 years of life. How many mothers in the past 25 years spent more time on ICQ or MSN messenger or Facebook or Instagram or tiktok than playing with their kids? How many babies never spent much time with their parents and went straight into a daycare with 25 other kids because both parents need to work to pay the rent and bills? Daycare isn't necessarily bad, but some are highly likely to have environments much less nurturing than parents of that child. Lacking extensive social interaction early I think will cause many neurological pathways associated with empathy and social skills to become underdeveloped early.
Second, people who might be on the spectrum but develop normally through community interactions helping to train them to be reasonably normal don't have a community to train on, so the deficit becomes permanent. Internet communities aren't a replacement for being next to someone in the flesh.
Third, although we are the least mentally healthy we've ever been as a society there's more awareness of the potential for being mentally ill, so people who would be clinically called a weirdo or a jerk in previous eras are now on a spectrum with a medical label. Doesn't solve anything, but it does mean numbers will go up even with the same number of people with it, forget about having much more people with it and also catching more people as having it.
Finally, historically we've only a few times every had parents as old as they are now, and there's been a link found between parental age and autism. While in some ways we're the best off we've ever been, our cramped living conditions, requirement to work long hours at stressful jobs (physically demanding jobs aren't necessarily the most stressful), and making too little for a parent to stay home and be a parent means there's a real crisis in parenthood which has many effects but in particular people just aren't having kids until they're much older.
I consider the peak of human civilization to be late 90s early 2000s.
No era is perfect and it had its problems, but the good far outweighed the bad.
I heard something recently that made me think though -- Someone said the 70s were the hangover for the 60s that laid the groundwork for the 80s. This framework seems like it could work somewhat -- The 1930s were the hangover for the 1940s, which laid the groundwork for the 1950s. The timing doesn't work perfectly but then we're living in a dynamic system so people are reacting to stuff. The 2010s and 2020s being the hangover for the 1990s and 2000s, leading potentially to a banger in the 2030s? Hard to say, we'll have to see. No matter what though, this moment will pass, as will the next. We live in a dynamic system and the only thing that won't change is things will change.
No era is perfect and it had its problems, but the good far outweighed the bad.
I heard something recently that made me think though -- Someone said the 70s were the hangover for the 60s that laid the groundwork for the 80s. This framework seems like it could work somewhat -- The 1930s were the hangover for the 1940s, which laid the groundwork for the 1950s. The timing doesn't work perfectly but then we're living in a dynamic system so people are reacting to stuff. The 2010s and 2020s being the hangover for the 1990s and 2000s, leading potentially to a banger in the 2030s? Hard to say, we'll have to see. No matter what though, this moment will pass, as will the next. We live in a dynamic system and the only thing that won't change is things will change.
They're talking about splitting up Google into different companies because it's too big and they allegedly committed antitrust violations.
I don't think a lot of people realize how much the modern web is built up around Google and their money. Google makes android, pushes the google search engine through android, and pays Apple to use the google search engine as well. Google pays to develop Chrome, but also pays Firefox huge amounts to use the google search engine.
Most of Google's businesses and partnerships are loss leaders intended to push people into Google's lucrative search engine.
If Google gets split up, I think immediately many of those loss leaders shut down because they won't be profitable if they're not pointing people towards a lucrative business. Chrome doesn't make sense. Android doesn't make sense. Youtube likely isn't going to make sense in its current form but could be made a lot worse to make it worth running. I really question if a lot of projects like Opera or Firefox continue without the huge money injections from Google.
That isn't necessarily to say that breaking up Google would be automatically bad. There's businesses such as Rumble that are struggling to compete against Youtube for example because they're a real company that needs to make money and they're competing with a loss leader being used to drive the profitable business. Linux on Mobile may end up getting a boost when Android itself has to justify itself based on revenue and so either drives up the cost per device somehow or adds a bunch of crapware to help the android devs get paid. The fact that virtually every browser lives on Google's search largesse also suggests that there's undue influence from this one company and its policies on the entire product category. A lot of marginal product categories seem likely to be shut down altogether since they don't make any sense as anything but a loss leader, which in cases they're making a good product is a problem, but isn't so bad in the sense that someone else can get a crack at niche markets.
Some unanticipated things could happen -- the world is on gmail in particular, what if gmail had to survive independently? How about google chat? How about google docs? I'd expect without acting as a gateway to search they'd all lose their raison d'etre pretty quickly. The Google Graveyard could find itself with a lot more headstones.
Ironically, that might help Microsoft slot into a much better position with many of its integrated services. Might they be next?
I guess on the other hand, there's also the reality that Google is a huge company with a lot of influence, so if there's a chance to just pay a fine or accept some restrictions that hurt in the short term but are ignored in the long term -- just like what happened with Microsoft -- I bet there'll be pressure to do that. So we'll see what if anything happens.
I don't think a lot of people realize how much the modern web is built up around Google and their money. Google makes android, pushes the google search engine through android, and pays Apple to use the google search engine as well. Google pays to develop Chrome, but also pays Firefox huge amounts to use the google search engine.
Most of Google's businesses and partnerships are loss leaders intended to push people into Google's lucrative search engine.
If Google gets split up, I think immediately many of those loss leaders shut down because they won't be profitable if they're not pointing people towards a lucrative business. Chrome doesn't make sense. Android doesn't make sense. Youtube likely isn't going to make sense in its current form but could be made a lot worse to make it worth running. I really question if a lot of projects like Opera or Firefox continue without the huge money injections from Google.
That isn't necessarily to say that breaking up Google would be automatically bad. There's businesses such as Rumble that are struggling to compete against Youtube for example because they're a real company that needs to make money and they're competing with a loss leader being used to drive the profitable business. Linux on Mobile may end up getting a boost when Android itself has to justify itself based on revenue and so either drives up the cost per device somehow or adds a bunch of crapware to help the android devs get paid. The fact that virtually every browser lives on Google's search largesse also suggests that there's undue influence from this one company and its policies on the entire product category. A lot of marginal product categories seem likely to be shut down altogether since they don't make any sense as anything but a loss leader, which in cases they're making a good product is a problem, but isn't so bad in the sense that someone else can get a crack at niche markets.
Some unanticipated things could happen -- the world is on gmail in particular, what if gmail had to survive independently? How about google chat? How about google docs? I'd expect without acting as a gateway to search they'd all lose their raison d'etre pretty quickly. The Google Graveyard could find itself with a lot more headstones.
Ironically, that might help Microsoft slot into a much better position with many of its integrated services. Might they be next?
I guess on the other hand, there's also the reality that Google is a huge company with a lot of influence, so if there's a chance to just pay a fine or accept some restrictions that hurt in the short term but are ignored in the long term -- just like what happened with Microsoft -- I bet there'll be pressure to do that. So we'll see what if anything happens.
It seems to me that the old saying is true: "Locks are for keeping honest people out".
I've spent enough time watching the lock picking lawyer to know that if that guy wants in your lock, it doesn't matter what it is you've only got 45 seconds for the most secure lock on earth, and he'll narrate it and he'll close it up and do it again to prove it wasn't a fluke in that time.
If you're building a secure safe, you want someone who knows how people normally crack safes so you don't easily fall for the stuff most people would hit first.
(Though apparently all safes are designed to eventually be cracked, so they are set up to try to keep a determined thief out for a certain amount of time so your other stuff can take effect like security)
(Though apparently all safes are designed to eventually be cracked, so they are set up to try to keep a determined thief out for a certain amount of time so your other stuff can take effect like security)
Yeah, that's sort of a refutation of "perception creates reality" -- whether you perceive bees positively or negatively they can still sting you and those stings can still kill you under the right conditions.
Actually, the same goes for humans. Many people think it's strangers who are dangerous, but statistically speaking you're more likely to be hurt by a friend, family member, intimate partner, or acquaintance -- the people who you think are friendly and safe.
It's one of the difficult things you have to accept if you work in science, technology, or engineering, that objective reality is the final arbiter of objective truth. No matter how much or how persuasively you argue your point, if your code doesn't compile then your code doesn't compile, if your mechanism doesn't do what it needs to do then it doesn't do what it needs to do, if your chemical formula doesn't result in the chemicals you need then it doesn't result in the chemicals you need.
I knew a guy back in school who was deeply autistic, but his brain went around in circles. He'd get the wrong answer on a test requiring math, and he'd argue that he did the correct things to get the answer even though he obviously didn't. If he took those answers and tried to apply them to a real-world situation, he'd just have the wrong outcome.
Now that doesn't mean that perception is meaningless. How you personally choose to see the world is going to affect how you interact with the world and that's going to have a big effect on your outcomes. For example, if you apply for a job because you think you can get it but don't apply for a job because you think you can't, only one of those two choices can result in you getting the job. If you try to make a new friend because you think people are good to know, or if you lock yourself in, only one of the two is likely to result in meeting new friends. The same person in the same situation can feel bad about a situation or good about a situation based on how they see it, and that has a big effect on how their lives go. Therefore there's a subjective truth that can be somewhat pliable, and it can change the way you behave in ways that have an effect on the objective world.
In spite of my examples, the world is more complicated than just seeing everything positively and acting as if everything will always turn out ok. The stereotype of the naive young person heading to the big city only to be crushed by the reality is something that actually happens, and negative perceptions don't exist just to hurt you, but to help you identify threats and protect yourself from things that can actually hurt you. My autistic friend never graduated despite his perception being that he answered the questions correctly. Another friend came to the big city from a relatively safe relatively affluent small town and was shocked when his car was broken into and all his stuff was taken.
Part of life is navigating these paradoxes -- you have to accept that objective reality doesn't care what you think is true, but your subjective perception of reality changes how objective reality plays out at times. You have to accept that being cynical means you pass up things that could have been good, but being optimistic means you accept things that turn out to be bad, and there's no math equation you can run to determine exactly how to live because there is no one correct answer. Objective and subjective are both true in a sense, cynical and optimistic are both true in a sense, and in different sense all 4 are also false in a sense.
Actually, the same goes for humans. Many people think it's strangers who are dangerous, but statistically speaking you're more likely to be hurt by a friend, family member, intimate partner, or acquaintance -- the people who you think are friendly and safe.
It's one of the difficult things you have to accept if you work in science, technology, or engineering, that objective reality is the final arbiter of objective truth. No matter how much or how persuasively you argue your point, if your code doesn't compile then your code doesn't compile, if your mechanism doesn't do what it needs to do then it doesn't do what it needs to do, if your chemical formula doesn't result in the chemicals you need then it doesn't result in the chemicals you need.
I knew a guy back in school who was deeply autistic, but his brain went around in circles. He'd get the wrong answer on a test requiring math, and he'd argue that he did the correct things to get the answer even though he obviously didn't. If he took those answers and tried to apply them to a real-world situation, he'd just have the wrong outcome.
Now that doesn't mean that perception is meaningless. How you personally choose to see the world is going to affect how you interact with the world and that's going to have a big effect on your outcomes. For example, if you apply for a job because you think you can get it but don't apply for a job because you think you can't, only one of those two choices can result in you getting the job. If you try to make a new friend because you think people are good to know, or if you lock yourself in, only one of the two is likely to result in meeting new friends. The same person in the same situation can feel bad about a situation or good about a situation based on how they see it, and that has a big effect on how their lives go. Therefore there's a subjective truth that can be somewhat pliable, and it can change the way you behave in ways that have an effect on the objective world.
In spite of my examples, the world is more complicated than just seeing everything positively and acting as if everything will always turn out ok. The stereotype of the naive young person heading to the big city only to be crushed by the reality is something that actually happens, and negative perceptions don't exist just to hurt you, but to help you identify threats and protect yourself from things that can actually hurt you. My autistic friend never graduated despite his perception being that he answered the questions correctly. Another friend came to the big city from a relatively safe relatively affluent small town and was shocked when his car was broken into and all his stuff was taken.
Part of life is navigating these paradoxes -- you have to accept that objective reality doesn't care what you think is true, but your subjective perception of reality changes how objective reality plays out at times. You have to accept that being cynical means you pass up things that could have been good, but being optimistic means you accept things that turn out to be bad, and there's no math equation you can run to determine exactly how to live because there is no one correct answer. Objective and subjective are both true in a sense, cynical and optimistic are both true in a sense, and in different sense all 4 are also false in a sense.
"They have 3 billion people's social security number"
Uh... There aren't 3 billion people with social security numbers...
Uh... There aren't 3 billion people with social security numbers...