Bsharp

I agree - hunger for me is a distraction, and the sooner I can take care of it, the sooner I can get focused again. Eating could certainly be a distraction if you overeat to the point of being tired after a meal, but eating properly, imo, takes care of something that would otherwise be hindering my productivity.

Agree that there are other things this study may be beneficial for. I edited my initial comment to acknowledge that this study and its conclusions are probably being hyped by the media, and it's actual value and the limitations of the study may be addressed by the authors in the study.

Unfortunately, the authors' words will be replaced by journalists to get attention.

Size isn't the only consideration.

If you sample 10,000 professional athletes, are you getting a sample population which represents 9-5ers and couch potatoes too?

Reconciliation: NYT wants to report on something that sounds interesting and people will talk about.

That was my thought as well before even opening the article.

If he had won in 2008, he would be right in the middle of this too.

I'm sorry if this is ignorance, but they can scientifically test the effect of your state of mind on various psychological disorders? That seems like it's another topic of immense subjectivity. Isn't the objective measurement of one's state of mind, and even certain psychological conditions, in practice difficult/impossible to the point where studies are non-reproducible or highly debatable?

I really don't know, so if you have examples of such studies I'd be more than happy to become informed.

So you think "warm relationships" and IQ - two metrics used for some of the study's key conclusions - are represented similarly among this group as the general population?

I agree that it may be valuable for things such as health metrics, since it holds socioeconomic factors relatively constant, like another commenter on this thread mentions. But at the very least these people certainly had access to better health care than the average person, or at least higher-than-average intelligence to be able to handle adverse situations during their life. That alone should be enough to eliminate any meaning this may have towards people in general.

Just ordered it off Amazon. From reading the description it seems like I already agree with the premise of the book so it might just reinforce my existing beliefs, but it seems interesting nonetheless.

Harvard undergrads from the 1930's are not a representative sample of any group other than that specific group. The sample is in no way random or representative of the general population in the least bit. I can't believe that anyone thinks that this study has any meaning towards the population in general.

I'm sorry if that's overly cynical, but why is it so hard for Harvard academics to understand that the factors affecting people from the Mid-Western middle class, Southern urban poor, New England suburban wealthy, etc. are all very different? Not to mention the factors affecting various cultures internationally.

This is a study of similar people with relatively similar genetics, backgrounds, upbringing, values, wealth, intelligence, and overall lifestyle. How is this of any value to people who aren't like them?

EDIT: I'm realizing that the study's conclusions might be getting exaggerated in the media. I haven't read the actual study, so I'm not sure if the authors are claiming anything as significant as the media is.

Randall must have one of the shortest travel times from expressing an idea (through his comics) to someone making that idea a reality (this, geohashing, etc.).

I agree that the title is linkbait, which is unfortunate since the content is interesting enough to not need it.

Why are those things people should care about? I understand that knowing these things means you have a less-skewed view of the world, but I don't think it's unreasonable that Average Joe doesn't know the world life expectancy or the population distribution. To most people these metrics are just interesting curiosities and nothing more - they have other things to care about, so naturally something like this falls by the wayside. I feel like the article is unfairly criticizing people for not being informed.

I think it would be more interesting if someone gave this to 1,000 leading politicians, who should be much more knowledgeable about this stuff but I suspect would only do somewhat better, if at all. (Disclaimer: making that up.)

The only reason people did worse is because either the questions are worded somewhat deceptively (question 1 presents itself like a math problem where 4bn would be correct) or they challenge something no none would know and would have to make a guess based on their current worldview, such as poverty overall decreasing in recent years, which contrasts the cries of many politicians and talking heads. Chimpanzees don't "know" any more, but they're not going to fall for the traps in questions designed to trip people up. This is basically a test of common misconceptions.

Upvote for making me literally lol

I think you mean: If you didn't bet on the roulette ball balancing on the divider between numbers, would you say "God damnit I feel like an idiot, I should have bet on that!"

The odds of a cryptocurrency catching on the way Bitcoin has are very low. Buying BTCs (or other cryptocurrencies) back in the day would be like investing in penny stocks.

EDIT: For the record I agree with you - there's no point in looking back and saying "I should have done that!"

> It could make it much easier for children to get hold of.

There are currently no age restrictions on heroin. All a child needs is a morally-bankrupt drug dealer, which imo is easier than finding a morally-bankrupt store clerk if it were legal.

> You would also need to define what is "pure" and police that for an endless list of possible products.

'Pure' can be easily defined, and it doesn't have to be 'pure' anyway, just not increasingly harmful - beer isn't pure alcohol, McDonald's burgers aren't pure beef, etc.

> It is difficult enough to keep salmonella out of food, effective regulation of cannabis sounds impossible. Any regulation would need to be sufficiently loose that you do not need a black market.

Comparing keeping salmonella out of food to keeping drugs clean is apples and oranges - they're entirely different problems. Also, given the insane markup drugs are subject to today, primarily due to the risk of distribution, prices would fall with regulation, and imo enough to undercut any current black market. Also, the quality could be better or worse, but you know it would be safe.

Interesting, but the title doesn't really match the contents. It sounds like it'd be about sexism/ageism/racism in the tech world, but it's more just a summary of fairly interesting facts about this group of elite tech companies. Still a good read, but the article itself is less controversial than it sounds.

Great explanation. I think many people envision the stretching as either a) the entire 1 km being tacked on to the end, or b) as if the ant were walking alongside the rubber band, rather than on it. This helps clear that up.

It depends on your expected medical costs. If you're relatively young and healthy, saving that 9-12.5% of your income is worth it. If you're sick/old/etc., then it's absolutely worth buying coverage. Note that in this system the healthy don't join the risk pool.

This, my friend, is called adverse selection.

Like taxes, this will likely be a largely individual endeavor. Maybe there will be PSAs, but their effectiveness is questionable. Many people (and the politicians who signed it!) don't know the enrollment requirements, subsequent responsibilities, and consequences for failure to comply.

Everyone is fighting over the validity and constitutionality of this law, instead of informing the public about what they need to do to avoid financial penalties. The debate will rage on no matter what, but whether or not you agree with this law (and I don't), the priority right now should be to help people make an informed decision about their compliance.

Of course people will enroll eventually, but the first ones will be the ones with the most to gain. It isn't guaranteed that individuals won't eat the penalty and enroll when they need it, but you can guarantee that people who benefit with little or no cost to them will be want their benefits ASAP.

My point was mostly that if their "experts" can't think critically about the incentive system the program creates, what else will they be surprised about? Adverse selection? Insurer bankruptcy and industry consolidation?

> "The first month of the new health law’s rollout reveals an unexpected pattern in several states: a crush of people applying for an expansion of Medicaid and a trickle of sign-ups for private insurance. This early imbalance — in some places nine out of 10 enrollees are in Medicaid — has taken some experts by surprise. The Affordable Care Act, which expanded Medicaid to cover millions of the poorest Americans who couldn’t otherwise afford coverage, envisions a more even split with an expanded, robust private market..."

So you're telling me that more people who are getting free benefits showed up to the party than people who have to pay significant annual premiums? Shocking. I think they need new "experts".

What if you find a hard problem but can't solve it?

There's no shame in solving a problem yourself which someone else has already solved. You may find a better solution. You may just learn a lot. Either way, you get practice seeing a problem and solving it, which is what programming is all about.

To be featured on ESPN 8 - The Ocho.

It's incredible how okay it is to make fun of them too. Bullying is bad, unless you're bullying a hipster.

Wow, talk about Wadhwa throwing up a strawman there...

I think Shiller has a point, though. If young people are so appalled by what Wall Street is doing, they should be the ones working for them and changing things. Self-driving cars are cool, but what does the US need more - self-driving cars, or a sound and ethical banking system?

I would agree if it didn't say "Hipster Logo", but it does.

What would I be making fun of if I posted an infographic titled "Wearing the Perfect Black-Person Outfit", and featured pictures of saggy jeans, gold chains, grills, flat-brim hats, etc.?

He should have made ESPN post it.

Everyone would be so confused.

They probably did. Parents assume that their kids will learn anything they need to know in school, rather than ensure their kids know something by teaching it themselves.

That's a response I use whenever people tell me compulsory schooling as it exists now is essential so kids can function in the real world. You learn little-to-no real-world skills in a basic K-12 (US) curriculum.

If you'll let me put my tin foil hat on, I would say its possible that personal finance isn't taught deliberately - banks want people to be worse at money and debt management so they can make more money off them.

I think I find hipster-bashing more annoying than hipsters. So there's a group of people you don't like - what's the big deal? Why spend so much time shaming them? Are we 5 years old?