If a large government decides it's a problem, would they hold it or destroy it?
17,615 karma · joined June 15, 2012
I was really concerned about it at the time, I admit, but now seems overblown in retrospect. Internet speeds, for example, have only improved since then. And haven't seen the concerns about web site bundling or priority access manifest.
Should we have saved the 9,024 Blockbuster stores?
Also, it's not about today. Who is in the best position to be the iOS of driving, if not Tesla?
Then people could just test themselves before traveling or going to indoor gatherings. They could also be used at airports, etc.
Source?
He had a vacation home that he bought in 1971 for $150k, but sold it a few years ago. So far haven't seen anything that would suggest he's not as frugal as advertised.
You are not going to innovate or create anything if you're fighting all day, every day. Constantly distracted. The purpose of a company is to bring people together to CREATE something of value. To solve problems. Hopefully to improve lives on some vector. And you do that most effectively by rowing in the same direction, focused.
People spending their day on Twitter or Slack or in the office halls arguing about the war is not productive. It's mostly just destructive. They're certainly not inventing anything, or curing a disease, or improving energy efficiency, or creating tools, or educating, or entertaining, or inspiring, or anything else additive.
It's wild. That was standard not long ago. Most companies, even in tech, were apolitical. Maybe there would be some watercooler chat near the election with that one coworker who was really into politics, but that was about it. People mostly didn't know or care what the politics of their coworkers were. If they did, it wasn't a big deal and would still be friendly regardless.
But now many are convinced they are warriors in a never-ending existential war. Then it's hard to understand why someone isn't a warrior.
"We're about to die! What are you doing, not fighting? You must choose a side. You're with us or against us!"
Normally this happened on a 4 year cadence[1]. Locusts would descend to rally the troops, warn of impending doom, have the battle (vote), and then go hibernate for a few years. But now it's non-stop. The war just never ends. It bleeds into everything. Those who choose to not participate in the war or don't engage in the approved way are looked at with suspicion, accused of being the enemy.
1. https://benlandautaylor.com/2018/09/22/the-four-year-locusts...
Don't toe the line and echo approved orthodoxy? You're the enemy! This is extreme tribal behavior.
As a result, there is a chilling effect and a lot liberals no longer feel welcome on the left[1][2]. Certainly don't feel welcome to speak or think openly. This is incredibly regressive, damaging to liberalism and enlightenment values. Seriously, not being able to challenge your own side and engage in dialectic will send us back to the dark ages.
1. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right
2. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right/comm...
In other words, more than half the respondents consider expressing views beyond a certain consensus in an academic setting quite dangerous to their career trajectory."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/academics-...
It's really a kind of recurring issue, where something is superficially "solved" (sounds good on the surface), but actually ends up making things worse in practice.
Noting the efficiency of giving people money directly, and they can use it in a way that would be most useful in their particular case.
Hyperliquemia
Hyper, meaning high. liqu, referring to liquorice. emia, meaning presence in blood.
High liquorice presence in blood.
People are so used to shows and popular voices pushing agendas that it seems they're flummoxed when one isn't doing that. Apparently under the impression that Rogan is endorsing everything his guests say and that his listeners just blindly absorb/repeat.
But he isn't pushing an agenda, isn't telling you what to think, doesn't filter by ideology. He's just having conversations with people that he thinks are interesting and treats them respectfully, like a friend would in real life. That's why it resonates, is refreshing, and will continue to mystify those that expect everything to fit neatly in a pre-defined, pre-approved box.
A couple recommended talks about this subject.
Preventing the Collapse of Civilization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-SOdj4Kkk
The Thirty Million Line Problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZRE7HIO3vk