SomethingNew2

That’s a compelling story. But that doesn’t make it accurate. We are early on and it’s hard to determine how large or small the ecosystem and value that will be created on top. Some went big, like personal computers, the internet, databases, Java, electricity, and so on. Others did not (yet), web3 (maybe), other databases, low code platform, website builders, workstations, many old personal computing systems, etc.

Yes, it’s easier for incumbents to capture value because they own customer relationships. However, if that was always the case open ai wouldn’t exist. So some do breakthrough.

Early on could people see the future and know what Ms dos, Oracle, or google would become? No because it’s new and it’s the future. It’s only obvious in hindsight. Yes, all of these ai companies on top of chatgpt could become nothing. On the flip side the complexity and depth of chat gpt and other models will continue to expand, creating more possibilities for potential value creation. Or the whole thing can turn into an overvalued version of Clippy. It’s hard to see how it will play out.

Balance.

The extreme of living for today only or living for tomorrow only will mean you are under serving your present or future self. Time is short so it’s wise to give to your present day self. Also you don’t want to rob your future self, so investing in your future is also important. Extremes are easier to manage. With balance you’ll have the choice and its burden to decide between today and tomorrow.

Let’s assume there will be some % of kids that lack interest in learning, have no parental or community support, and despite schools providing them additional support for years they show no improvement or desire to improve. I think it’s reasonable some % of these people will always be in the population pool. What is the solution for these individuals?

Based on the Amazon reviews, this doesn’t look like a very good book.

“A Lot of Non-math Digressions”

“Way too wordy and discursive. Boring format.”

“It's hard to imagine that someone would write a book ostensibly about math that has so much personal, political, social, and just plain silly off-subject commentary. This book is so interspersed with that kind of commentary that it is difficult to focus on the math.”

“The book has some helpful insights regarding teaching elementary students basic mathematical operations. However, it is filled with so many abrupt political digressions, often incoherent, and ironically, occasionally illogical, that the entire work is barely readable.”

There are a lot of comments attempting to rationalize the value add or differentiation of humans synthesizing information and communicating it to others vs an llm based ai doing something similar. The fact that it’s so difficult to find a compelling difference is insightful in itself.

Imo one part of the confusion and complexity is pricing. There is no standardized pricing. Many countries with government run healthcare systems solve this by not showing patients the prices and standardizing the price they pay to doctors etc. in the US you have the hospitals / health care providers, insurance companies, and patients all negotiating with each other. Some state governments tried to mandate a defined list of services and costs, but I don’t think it worked. Each provider categorizes things slightly differently. Also it seems the insurance companies and providers are fighting it out around what to pay, leaving the patient in the middle also trying to negotiate. It’s all very exhausting.

Agree. It is easier to be present for children and their needs when you are physically present. One could say the same applies in reverse. Being physically present at a business allows for someone to more easily reach them, discuss issues, get to know coworkers etc. I believe remote work works well enough with all the digital tools. But it’s not as engaging as being physically there surrounded by teammates.

Anyone who has had several kids and worked at home knows you can’t do both unless you leave the house or have a nanny / partner / grandparent watch the children while you work. Young children are on a cycle of eat, poop, sleep, activity every few hours or even over a matter of minutes sometimes. It may be easier to have children while at home, but working and raising kids under the same roof would be challenging.

This article pulls together a lot of evidence, but it does not consider evidence for the contrary. Productivity went up with remote work. Fertility rates went up. How was productivity for people with little kids at home who never sleep? Is there any evidence that sleep deprived people aren’t as productive? Also what is productive? Pumping out the most units of work? Sitting at home with no in office social obligations will give more time for work output. But does that create the most value for the economy? What about innovation, serendipity, brainstorming, building relationships, sharing ideas etc. They will provide long term productivity, vs short term output based productivity metrics.

Men also help raise the child over their lifetime.

I didn’t have any background knowledge on this so started looking on Wikipedia. It looks like Chicago has one of the largest Chinatowns so I started there. You can read about its origin in the history section https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_Chicago. From what I’ve read, it appears it was people primarily from China. Do you have any information about Chinatowns being formed by other Asian cultures?

Agree. But also if Chinatown wasn’t founded by one group it wouldn’t be Chinatown. When we are appreciating a culture, that culture is a set of values, norms, and beliefs that are consistent, not diverse.

I believe this is a topic where many people have predefined narratives they repeat. The comments above are about the benefits and costs of diversity (different but informed opinions), yet the non-narrative fitting opinion is downvoted. In my experience diversity provides access to new ideas and a variety of experiences through the people you meet. However there are also costs to diversity which shouldn’t be ignored. Communication is more challenging in diverse groups. Also values, beliefs, and norms vary more in a diverse group. That’s beneficial for those looking to expand their understanding of others and the world. However it also means less cohesiveness within the group which reduces feelings of belonging. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. There are similar trade offs in building technology. Having access to a wide variety of frameworks and technologies helps you learn more ideas and discover better ways to do things. However groups also create standards which allow for interoperability. Pros and cons.

What is your rationale for this comment? Can you provide more detail around metrics and financial indicators?

Unknown. Some possible reasons:

1. ADHD always existed, is a problem that needs solving for someone to participate in society, and everyone went untreated. Diagnosis has improved.

2. ADHD has increased because of environmental changes such as pollution, food, chemicals, screens, how we raise children, or some other factor.

3. ADHD is a description of a group of people who have different preferences and corporate interests have identified it as a profitable problem and have become dependent on it to hit their revenue targets, so they tell themselves and customers that their kids will not be successful in life without their drugs.

4. Schools and society operate differently now and so opportunities that fit well for people who thrive in more physically active settings have been diminished (more time indoors, less free roaming outside, less physical jobs, etc).

5. A combination of several items above when brought together caused real or perceived increase in ADHD.

6. Something else?

Anyone who attributes a preference to one dimension, in this case elites saving commercial real estate, is oversimplifying things. I’m sure it’s a factor. But there are many factors at play, including but not limited to saving commercial real estate, saving service jobs in cities, local government retail and hotel taxes, preference by some to be in office, new grads who want to move to a city to work and not stay in their parents bedroom, improved serendipity for information sharing, better oversight of work being done, companies in long term leases they want to use, employees who enjoy access to benefits like free food, exercise classes, other perks, and a bunch more I can’t think of.

Based on the information in the article these complaints were raised after the contract was ended. Why not refuse the work or raise the complaint at the time? The article also mentions the work was worse than they thought, but indicates they were told what the work entailed before starting it. Also the primary person being quoted lost his wife and family, and blames this work on why he lost his wife. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows singular reasons are an oversimplification of a complicated relationship.

I think the author makes a fair point that Oppenheimer was not a revolutionary physicist like Einstein or Feynman, but rather a synthesizer and organizer who brought together diverse ideas and people to achieve a common goal. I wonder how much of his success was due to his charisma and leadership skills, and how much was due to his scientific vision and intuition. I also wonder how he dealt with the ethical dilemmas and moral consequences of his work on the atomic bomb. Did he ever regret his involvement or try to prevent further nuclear proliferation? How did he cope with the political pressure and scrutiny that he faced after the war?

Our son has the same thing. Patience, adapting, and time. Will require more patience in some scenarios. Finding adaptations. For example he hated hand dryers in bathrooms so we got ear muffs and he loved it. He was excited he could now use public bathrooms. Time, as they get older it’s always there but they self adapt. Now he uses hand dryers even though they annoy him - he learned to deal with it. It all works out over time.