RSS is all you need https://rohanrd.xyz/posts/why-rss/
P.S. I haven't been able to ditch hacker news like I wanted to.
RSS is all you need https://rohanrd.xyz/posts/why-rss/
P.S. I haven't been able to ditch hacker news like I wanted to.
It's not that I want to be completely ignorant of e.g. US politics, but maybe I try a 30 minutes summary of concrete facts per week, rather than what I used to get when I would drop onto national news sites as a distraction or focus break.
If I could just figure out a browser extension that intercepts search result links to reddit and gives me a quick LLM summary of the post and discussion instead, I will have cut out most of these sources of distraction.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedi...
For those of you unfamiliar, he was a well-known and serious political pundit who in recent years has been performing as a character (of the same name) who parodies milquetoast late night centre-left almost-comedy.
I think "liberal" and "conservative" are some of those words that were well chosen, perhaps because they are self-enforcing to an extent; I wouldn't know. More or less from first principles: a conservative prefers the status quo and the status quo is at least a local maximum for the conservative. Psychologically, conservatives tend to deal with fearful, uncertain things by clinging closer to the things they know are safe. On the other hand, liberals seek to change the status quo in the hopes of positive progress. They deal with uncertainty by embracing the source and taking a risk. The conservatives cling to the old teachings of the village that warn them to not eat white berries and to heed dreams of nebulous things. The liberals eat the berries and ignore the dreams, and sometimes they die (and bring death to the village) and sometimes they live.
(Don't put too much stock in reading what I am saying using the colloquial connotations of the words. They will only be more confusing.)
I do not say these things to disparage; although I of course have my own beliefs, I prefer understanding and no one is blatantly wrong for being a conservative or right for being a liberal. A conservative holds both right and wrong close to the chest; a liberal seeks them both out. When the conservative is right and the liberal is wrong, when the conservative is wrong and the liberal is right.... Three final points in this vein: most people will be conservatives; liberals will tend towards the truth; to be conservative and liberal are both qualities, with specific purpose and result, and as with all dual qualities there is a harmonious moderation.
To return to the topic at hand, I think it is fairly true of this reality that there is plenty of good that can be, and therefore plenty of riches for explorers to bring back. It does not matter, and it can't be said, if the explorers themselves are foolish or wise; every truth lies exactly in the (conclusion of the) journey. It is what is made of the journey that speaks to right or wrong. For example, we have a lot of evidence that favors modern medicine. It follows that people should not advocate for "healing crystals" and the sort.
To conclude, I will say that although I consider myself to favor being a liberal, and I tend to agree more with political factions that are ostensibly liberal ("the left", whatever that means), oftentimes I seem to align more with "the right". Take multiculturalism: I believe it is ultimately highly beneficial and scarcely harmful, but I agree with most of the short- and middle-term policies of a "right-wing" acquaintance on the topic. My reasoning diverges at some important points and my conclusion is quite different, but I think that is one of the closer agreements I would have with any of my acquaintances on short-term policy for multiculturalism. We each pursue that which we think is right. I admit many psychological biases, but I will say I try to be right and that I am a liberal, if I am to choose. But that is all I will say, and not words others may attribute to me.
One thing that I do when worrying about global conflict is look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_confli... and sort by e.g. "2024 fatalities". It's not totally objective, or without its own issues, but going by the prior that the lives lost are of equal "importance" it's illuminating to see how well it lines up with mainstream news coverage.
Until the start of the current hot wars in Ukraine and Palestine there was a large gulf between what was ending human lives and what was generating column inches, even allowing for geopolitics and local languages.
My news diet mostly comes from the AP, national broadcasters in the EU, friends, and HN. I find surprisingly little interest in e.g. Sudan, Myanmar, Mexico, Yemen even allowing for the relative poverty and distance.
For me, given I don't live on the continent let alone the country, I wish I was as ignorant of US politics as of Chinese politics.
US tech news is relevant, and to an extent politics influences tech, but I really don't need to know when e.g. Florida has a fight with Disney.
> If I could just figure out a browser extension that intercepts search result links to reddit and gives me a quick LLM summary of the post and discussion instead, I will have cut out most of these sources of distraction.
Possibly a silly question, but presumably you've tried asking the LLM to write the browser extension?
If Florida interferes in Disney's business - a very powerful company, especially powerful and important to the state of Florida - and if they get away with it, then, 1) such interference could have an enormous negative impact on the economy; 2) it empowers and entrenches corrupt people in power; 3) your business could be next by some other government; 4) it could spread to other aspects of your life.
Today many businesses, including even prominent news media, are trying to appease Trump, who appears to be following Florida's precedent.
My main economic risk right now is that the German government is a mix of people who want to declare the current situation an economic emergency because without that they have a constitutional obligation to not borrow enough to stimulate it, vs. people who don't want to do that.
My second major risk is that if Ukraine and NATO collapses, Russian tanks may not stop until my house is a thousand kilometres in their rear view mirrors.
Not only is the specific fight the state of Florida had with the corporation of Disney not important, the state and the corporation are also not important.
But weirdly, I know about it.
Still, other things being important doesn't make the Disney-Florida conflict less important. You denying or not seeing its importance doesn't make it less important.
Even if Florida seceded or Disney went bankrupt, it wouldn't have any impact for me.
And yet, the news reached me.
Nothing you do in the US is seen as a role model here. For both better and worse.
I mean, consider that the country I live in required the censorship of Wolfenstein 3D when it came out — it never copied US attitudes to freedom of speech in the first place. Likewise, even the (I think) more relaxed UK attitudes to political censorship are the kind of thing America would never accept, while the UK would never accept US attitudes to guns and even all the flag waving is seen as a bit sus.
Also, by US standards, almost all of us over here are basically what your politics would call communists — not just because of the huge massive statues the actual communists put up that nobody took down, e.g. https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFRPSDec3ujrX79bA, but just because the European (including UK) Overton Windows are almost entirely to the left of the US Overton Window.
The US has (theoretically) separation of Church and State, the UK has a state church, Germany has direct tax collections paid from your wages to your church (unless you ask to be excommunicated). And a few countries to the south (depending how you count the micro-states), there's the actual pope, head of all the catholics, telling people to chill about homosexuality.
The EU is what some of the louder US right wing voices in my lifetime have claimed they want the US federal government to be: only there to make inter-state trade easier, not have any real power over the states themselves. (The right wings within the EU are a lot more complex than that, as there's not much agreement between national politicians over all the member countries).
We're not on the same page about which side of the road to drive on, which units of measure to use, or if we should have conscription.
We're not copying the US, we have better things to spend our time on. Like who should pay to subsidise the Deutschlandticket, or if New Year fireworks should really be allowed to go continuously at full intensity from midnight to 3am plus sporadically from sunset to sunrise, or if we should be allowed to borrow money to resolve our economic depression.
> Look at how the far right has spread across Germany and the US, and many places in between.
And none of that had anything to do with Florida arguing with Disney.
I can tell, because that spread pre-dated the lawsuit by a decade. If anything, causality was reversed.
What did spread from the US and may have precipitated the far-right, was the impact of the misuse of the Black–Scholes model, but even then the biggest pain within the EU was the Greek economy and loans running through it, not Florida.
I'm glad you agree that "different things impact different people in different ways."
The problem is thinking that you have no control, an awful meme that is depressing - almost the definition of depressing - and self-fulfillingly self-defeating.
The most powerful force in the world is public opinion in Western countries, especially in the US - that's why so many powerful parties invest so much to manipulate it. There are many entire news organizations, endless opinion writers/etc., influence campaigns run by everyone from corporations to political organizations to state intelligence agencies, etc. What are they all working so hard at, investing so much in, if it doesn't matter?
Public opinion is formed by you acquiring information (including mis-info or dis-info), analyzing it, and communicating socially with others about it. Because many others don't do that, and most who do just repeat from received narratives, if you do it - if you form narratives - you have even more power.
No single person ever accomplished anything - everything worthwhile has been done by humans in groups. We are social creatures, not lone wolves - that's how we operate; if you act like a lone wolf then yes, you will be mostly powerless. But if you act within a group, and especially if you act intentionally and intelligently, you have significant power.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." — Margaret Mead
As for the exceptional people who managed to wrestle that small indirect control into direct control and an actual result, there's also the likelihood to consider. Most people aren't exceptional and they realize it, it's right there in the word. Trying and failing to be the exception can lead to at least as much but probably more psychological pressure and suffering as just feeling out of control.
I'm happy that those people exist but for almost everyone else, direct control is the only thing that gives them mental relief. If you follow negative content it just amplifies the initially almost inconsequential realization that you have close to no control into a very consequential bad state of mind.
The short of it is: don't go chasing the things that push your buttons the wrong way, and don't make unrealistic expectations especially about fixing the aforementioned things.
I think the evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise. Most people in many, many cultures embrace democracy, for example; they mass protest - a seemingly universal human behavior; they organize themselves to achieve political ends - including over water usage.
As I said, this powerlessness is a meme. I think it's not only self-defeating, it's dangerous to society - it's irresponsible, because we are all responsible and we need the mass participation we have historically had.
> As I said, this powerlessness is a meme.
Exactly. And because it is, it has made us powerless. Funny how that works, genuinely.
It's not theoretical. Collective action happens all the time - it's fundamental human behavior.
> Exactly. And because it is, it has made us powerless. Funny how that works, genuinely.
You can change it, starting now.
> if I thought it was easy
Your premises are false; that's the problem. Nothing is stopping you in reality.
You can easily do something about that.
There's an issue and communicate around almost every single geopolitical or global issue and it can make people feel like they can't fix everything.
That's an interesting assumption. Is it really?
I suspect that informed citizens are better for society, but it might be worse for the the individuals.
Oh, and donate blood as often as they let you.
To think that you can shield yourself from the world is one of the biggest yet most foolish ideas of individualistic cultures
> What should I eat?
Food, from the grocery store. Adjust based on your family doctors advice and your own preferences.
> What should I learn?
Whatever your boss suggests will advance your career.
> What career should I embark upon?
Whatever is available locally and, optionally, suited to your abilities and interests.
> What should I invest in?
Whichever index fund option in your 401k is least volatile.
I was going to say that your arguments only hold so long as you oversimplify what are inherently complex decisions that require multiple and current information sources, but the very foundation of your line of questioning is just plain wrong.
In many industries if you are just a drone that does their job reasonably well, will work overtime every now and then when it's available and have shown willingness and ability to improve, management will make sure you stay at that company. Your only actual fear would be that the company fails but then very likely you are on the shortlist for that same management at their new company.
Assume incompetence not malice, people aren't out to get you and trying to get the worst for you, they want to best for themselves and if you make it so that making you comfortable also makes them comfortable then you aren't at risk.
Regarding food... Buy what's on the shelf, nobody needs their special kale only diet or whatever is the trend. What the parent was saying is follow general food guidelines, avoid excessive meat, keep portion sizes reasonable, half you plate should be vegetables etc...
Same with the index fund thing, if you start investing with a reputable investor when your are in your 20s even if it doesn't beat the market you will retire comfortably.
You don't need to minmax life. You can hit autopilot and just go where life takes you while just make small course corrections every now and then and you will be fine. You wont have a great life or a bad one. You will fall close to the middle of the bell curve and that's actually good enough.
Focus on the things that are important, spend time with your loved ones etc.
Trust me I understand your point of view as well, that's me I can't be vanilla with these things, my mental health doesn't allow it. I need to shoot for the moon and do it as efficiently as possible. I just know that's not necessary.
Growing up in Hungary, your options in "drone-like" jobs are:
a) put up with the ever increasing demand from your boss, making sure you keep hitting your quotas (eg. items scanned/minute)
or
b) get fired, and they will get the next person to do your job from the 1000 other desperate applicants.
The world is filled mostly with people who read below the 6th grade level. Those people have average life expectancies, average local jobs, and will retire with average savings if they retire at all.
I'm not judging those average lives, just trying to encourage the high achievers here to consider the way the 24 hour news cycle impacts the average, barely literate, person who just wants to survive their day without falling down either slope of the bell curve.
The answer in the 1920s if you can see the 1930s and 1940s coming wasn't go local, it was some combination of fortify, fearmonger and/or flee. People needed to be alerted that the situation was really bad and immediate action was required at all levels to avert disaster - but action wasn't taken and we saw an economic crisis unfold, followed by a military one.
Hind sight is 20/20, and its easy knowing a massive war was coming to say people should have been getting the hell out of Dodge. But moving your entire family to a new country let alone a new continent is a massive undertaking. How many people even if they had the warnings would have pulled the trigger on that move rather than wait and see? What sort of huge, global war scale negative things are being telegraphed today and what major life altering decisions on the magnitude of leaving your entire community and extended family behind and seeking asylum in a foreign country do you foresee yourself undertaking to address them in response to your unprecedented levels of modern awareness?
Or does your unprecedented access to that information simply make you feel helpless and hopeless? Are you actually better equipped to attend to the impending doom or do you just know that it's there. One wonders if we had the ability to know the exact month and year we were going to die, would we think our lives were made better by knowing that, or would we find that having that knowledge does little to change the quality of the life we live in any positive way, and largely adds stress or other negative experiences. There's a balance to be struck with any amount of being informed, but like everything else in life, I suspect moderation is the key.
Lots of them. Pretty much all the major players were democracies and it isn't that unreasonable to think that democracies can be persuaded to do sensible things. It is hard to evaluate counterfactuals but it is certainly plausible that if they'd actually understood how dire the situation was from better information the course of events was changeable. There are a lot of 1/10,000 people out there. It really is just a game of convincing a few of them to behave sensibly and they move mountains politically.
I'd suggest that from your perspective it isn't the information making you feel hopeless, your starting point is that of helplessness and hopelessness and the information is just making that more apparent. The world is hardly hopeless and the people in it are not helpless. Just ineffective on average and very poorly informed - problems that can be minimised by lots of information.
Again though, how many people were actually in a position to direct that democracy to do something different than it did, but were unable to do so because they were not sufficiently informed with available information for their position? I'm not suggesting that if people who were in power knew different things than they did that things couldn't have been different. I'm arguing that it wasn't a lack of reading available news by every day people not in power that allowed things to get to where they were.
> The world is hardly hopeless and the people in it are not helpless.
I wholeheartedly agree, I just think people vastly overestimate how important "being informed" is over just actually doing something about a local problem. How many things do you read in your daily feed that fundamentally alter or make a difference in the things you plan to do? Let's say you're interested in helping make a change with regards to child abuse. A noble and worthwhile cause. Who is actually helped by you spending even an hour every day scrolling "child abuse tik tok"? Or reading through a daily list of updates on child abuse cases and statistics nation wide? In my opinion almost any time you spend being "informed" about child abuse by mass media would be better spent actually volunteering for local abuse shelters and safety organizations. And the little actual good you or anyone else gains from you scrolling through mass media coverage could be gained in much shorter and more sporadc review of recent events rather than a daily firehose of news.
> Whichever index fund option in your 401k is least volatile.
That would be a govt bond fund or, worse, a money market fund. That is no different than telling retail investors to avoid equities, and only buy bonds. That is a terrible investment strategy. Literally: I have never seen an investment professional recommend such a portfolio for any one of working age.Better advice would a broad based US/Europe equity index, e.g., S&P 500 or FTSE 100 or EuroSTOXX 600.
Especially the second one: what a profoundly sad existence that someone would define their learning interests by what their boss recommends, with the sole goal of advancing one’s career. It isn’t even guaranteed the advice would be useful—bosses can be incompetent and petty too. And pray tell, if your boss follows that same advice, where does it stop? When does anyone have one original thought to pursue?
Food in the grocery store is stocked by corporations who have no concern for your health and want to fill you up with addictive fat and sugar. Eat instead natural ingredients, preferably from local growers or a farmer’s market.
Don’t limit yourself to local careers if nothing calls to you. Dare to dream even just a big bigger.
401k is a US concept. Most of the planet doesn’t live there.
Making quality decisions with incomplete information is a higher order operation than (as this study shows) surfing whatever has a compatible emotional valence.
True, and I use this to my advantage for constructive things. I bias my consumption towards things I aspire to. You can't always change yourself, but you can change your environment, which in turn changes you.
Logging into Feedly was like going back in time!
I must have imported all my Google Reader feeds into Feedly.
It's a Time Capsule of a bygone age! :-D
“We're going to have to develop some real machinery inside of our guts to turn off pure, unadulterated pleasure, or I don't know about you, I'm going to have to leave the planet.”
“Why?”
“Because the technology is just going to get better and better, and it's going to get easier and more and more convenient to sit alone with images on a screen, given to us by people that do not love us but want money. And that's fine in low doses. But if it's the basic main staple of your diet, you're going to die.”
— Jason Segel as David Foster Wallace
That is not entirely true. First, you can reduce your personal contribution to pollution. Second, you can vote for parties or candidates that can make the larger change, or the minimal change needed.
What happens if everybody says "there's nothing I can do"? Nothing. It's basically the attitude that got us here.
Why?
Why is the problem the feed? Why isn't the problem the very fact of wanting and trying to be informed of things far away out of your control in the first place?