LearnerHerzog

I'm no expert programmer (Jr Rails dev), but am interested to see how difficult this is to do. Perhaps if not too difficult, I can try and help you with a prototype or point you in the right direction?

More than anything I believe in the power of vision for change which you seem to have found in your idea.

I don't use anything for Chrome (my main browser), but rather just switch to Firefox when I come across JS annoyances on a site. I'd also like to hear some Chrome options that are easy to use and toggle.

Although Trump and Oprah are undoubtedly the kinds of action-takers who make their extremely high goals a reality, in my opinion they both lack one or two other vital presidential qualities that come with their personality types. Trump lacks the humility to admit what he doesn't know and learn it— instead he lashes out on Twitter, taking every unimportant comment personally; he is always thinking about competition and personal problems rather than considering all-inclusive encouragement. Oprah has the opposite problem; I can't judge her until she's given a chance, but I imagine her relying too much on people-pleasing, and would perhaps struggle to deal with constant decisions millions of people will dislike her for no matter what she chooses (unless she can afford a few hundred million "free cars" to give away to her new audience).

My question has become: "How do I get to that level of code-confidence, where I'm objectively certain of something somewhat discreetly subjective?"

Sometimes I feel like my personality lacks the pretentiousness required to be a great developer. How can anybody act like a know-it-all in an industry a million libraries of books couldn't cover in full? One that is still changing every day?

Of course, there are reasonable rules that should be followed, but maybe the less obvious or even important ones should be more prevalently established and reemphasized to avoid confusion when it may occur.

Here is a personal example: A company's I interviewed for had me do a coding challenge which is usually my strong suit in the interview process. They emailed me afterward, saying that my code was not quite on par with what they were looking for. This confused me because the functions worked perfectly, the results were in the format they were asking for, and I left comments throughout to explain my approach. Still, I understand and I am always willing to learn from mistakes; however, I asked for feedback (via email) and never received a response, so I had/have no way to know what needs to be improved and why.

Also consider Peter Diamandis discussing how we are heading toward a future of abundance in everything we need, making it significantly less expensive to "get by". https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_f...

While I agree we could see a universal basic income, I'd say Elon Musk puts too much weight on what people consider meaning. While most billionaire entrepreneurs love what they do, most of the working class see their jobs as something that prevents them from doing what they love. According to the Washington Post, only 13% of people worldwide like going to work. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2013/10...

So with these points of view considered, in a future where they go just as predicted, it seems like automation will force a sort of renaissance period with a massive rise in Arts and Entrepreneurship. If people begin making a universal basic income that pays their bills, and machines control everything they can possibly control, suddenly we will have almost the entire automation-replaced workforce spending their time on things that robots can't do in the foreseeable future: Fine-arts, competitive sports/games, and Entrepreneurship. I believe most people who hate their jobs already find meaning elsewhere and now with empty days and no serious financial concerns, it's either do nothing or do something that robots can't. Even the laziest people will become bored of doing nothing

The pre-Renaissance period in Europe shows many similarities to what we are experiencing now on a greater scale. For one, the printing press, among other important inventions, had an enormous impact on the shaping of the renaissance; suddenly, there was no need to re-write the same pages by hand, and the world started moving much faster than they were used to. Secondly, the decline of feudalism is comparable to what Peter Diamandis's "abundance life" would cause: a sudden narrowing of the gaps between classes.

I could be wrong, but a universal basic income wouldn't change how most people find meaning; it would rather provide people the freedom to attempt what they never had time for.

Interesting

"Leave url blank to submit a question for discussion. If there is no url, the text (if any) will appear at the top of the thread."

How much worse does radiation exposure get?

It's no secret "it’s hard to be totally happy/fulfilled in life if you don’t like what you do for your work." The point is "most people pick their career fairly randomly"; to those people, the rest of the advice he gives in #4 is very helpful.

Napoleon Hill would certainly approve of the suggestion to "aim to be the best in the world at whatever you do professionally"- similar to the philosophy Hill promotes: "Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve regardless of how many times you may have failed in the past". Unless you were born into a billionaire family and never had to consider goals of the people around you, I'm sure you're aware that most people, even in America, unfortunately, don't believe in themselves very much. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/09/23/survey...

Even ambitious people tend to set goals way lower than they are capable. A person working all day every day to make a million dollars by retirement could probably make a billion in 10 years if they believed it.

In our survey, we did ask people whether they would support regulation and here's what we found. First of all, people said no to regulation; and second, they said, "Well if you regulate cars to do this and to minimize total harm, I will not buy those cars." So ironically, by regulating cars to minimize harm, we may actually end up with more harm because people may not opt into the safer technology even if it's much safer than human drivers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...

... soda, red meat, ice cream

... alcohol/cigarettes (even though I don't drink or smoke often anyway, there is just no good reason to do them at all)

... sleeping in on weekends

... computer for first and last 60 minutes of the day

Yes:

- Meditate >10 min/day

- Exercise >5 days/wk

- Run 3-4 day/wk

- Better-learn and practice good nutrition

- Work >80 hours per week (job + take action on personal startup project)

- Write (morning): My definite goal and detailed plan as per rules of "Think and Grow Rich"

- Write (morning): Anything of importance that may come to mind (and/or possible subconscious breakthroughs from sleep)

- Write (night): What I learned/did that day

- Write (night): the next day's 3 major tasks

What did you use to set your blog up (language/framework/web-builder)? How long did it take you? It looks nice.

I believe that anybody who has put in any effort into bettering themselves knows for a fact one can completely change his/her own self-perception, and in-turn, their personality.

Here is howI interpret someone saying "Autistic people can't succeed in startups": (A) What is being said: A completely invalid statement, easily disprovable with plenty of examples, that generalizes all autistic people without regard to their interests and/or severity of the condition. (B) Who is saying it: Middle school staff who have zero established career-affiliation to the startup world, and no reason to be worthy of pushing children away from their attainable dreams/goals. It's easy to assume the staff responsible for this statement would likely fail a basic test on modern entrepreneurship. Conclusion: The statement should be completely ignored.

An example of advice worth taking: An article by Peter Thiel (Paypal co-founder) called: Asperger’s can be a big advantage in Silicon Valley http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-aspergers-is-an-a...

His blog is impressive for his age, and he clearly found and is pursuing a passion at a much younger age than most people; but whether or not he has autism, it's important he learns and understands how to handle certain inevitable social situations that may aim to discourage him from achieving his goal. He will surely come across a number of haters along the way and he needs to be able to distinguish between constructive criticism and personal attack. You should tell him how this is a great example of the kind of negative influence he needs to ignore if he wants to be an entrepreneur. Every successful CEO had been put down by non-believers at some point before they hit big. A good example: Walt Disney was fired from his first job as a newspaper cartoonist because he apparently "lacked imagination".

Read this article, especially #2 and #7: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-radin/ideas-are-the-easy-...

HAL's decision was a conscious one, but I find it rather interesting a 1960s-Kubrick (& Arthur C. Clarke) could predict the casual use of multiple currently-cutting-edge devices, and incorporate them into the story: - One being HAL's resemblance to a new amazon smart-home, at least in general purpose functionally, plus the vibe of sentience and omnipresence - Another prediction being realtime face-to-face chat as shown in one scene, which would https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwo6JpMceg

Naturally this makes me wonder if artificial consciousness is possible or not (be it X years/decades/centuries into the future), what fundamental questions it may answer, and what consequences it may have. I am not necessarily referring to the consequences of recursively self-improving super-intelligence, but not excluding it either I suppose. I am referring to true consciousness, with human-level feelings and emotions, where the personality may have an effect on what it does rather than simply and emotionlessly taking the logical (or programmed) route every time.

Creation of artificial consciousness may be many steps away from trying to undertake; however, given the ever-accelerating rate of both digital-tech and neuroscience, if true consciousness is at all possible to program, it will likely come far sooner than expected. It's bound to also answer a lot of questions about our ontological understanding of our own perception in/of realities.

In any case, by the grace of God and Elon Musk, let's hope we can avoid a Hollywood catastrophe in the upcoming rise of AI in general through the end of time as far as collective consciousness is concerned.