exclusiv

That's true. I also have a theory that those that don't wear condoms or use protection don't wear masks. And that a large percentage of the more religious are less likely to wear masks.

There are several buckets of people in those groups and they're pretty sizable. Crosses several races and several age groups.

EDIT: got some downvotes on this. Probably mentioning words like "race" and "age" which is a no-no for some people.

To clarify the intent of my comment - I think in order to provide a better response to a pandemic I think it is important to understand those groups which would be better served with different communications.

If you don't care about the risk of STDs or an unplanned pregnancy or your faith in God is the primary driver of your health and well-being response, you probably aren't going to care as much as others about wearing a mask.

I had one young pregnant acquaintance of ours, who lives with her grandmother, tell my wife that she knows she will be ok because of her faith in God. This young woman had at least one large family gathering. She didn't quarantine or test before seeing people. Her fiance was actually going to the gym regularly. Her grandmother got covid and luckily she made it.

Repeating all the same directives (social distance, mask, wash hands) has clearly NOT worked. Even saying the hospitals are overwhelmed hasn't seemed to matter.

I don't think you can prepare a good response without difficult conversations and an understanding of why people might do what they do and how that perspective developed.

And politicians would rather speak vaguely and not make tough calls lest they inflame some of their supporters.

Well the top comment mentioned far-right so that's probably why the parent dropped that. Separately, I don't think it was a productive comment.

I don't think the parent meant any disparagement to actual primitive tribes. Why did you assume that?

Putin's is unknown. An advisor said 70B in 2012 [1] Where do you see Xi having comparable substantial wealth? I see 500M to 1.5B.

Where do you get small fraction? That's not true at all. I can't even see either of your examples as having more, let alone a multiple.

Anyway, the wealthiest western capitalists aren't even accounted for. "author Malcolm Gladwell estimated the value of Rockefeller's fortune at its peak, in today's dollars, at $318.3 billion" [2] It's divided among the family at this point though of course.

But of the living individuals that we know (Bezos/Gates/Musk/Zuck), and have accurate info for, your statement is not true.

[1] https://money.com/vladimir-putin-net-worth/

[2] https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-rich-is-the-rockefel...

I probably should have worded that better. The elite athletes and professional researchers - sure that happens.

I guess I'm trying to say - if it's not your career - if you spent 7+ hours per week training for your physical body, practicing your sport or doing research nobody would say anything about it.

So and so is fit and exercises a lot. They look good, that's their jam. So and so is researching a lot or working on a really hard problem. Nice. Good for them.

You work harder than the average on your brain and/or business - "you work too much"

I'm not sure why people can't differentiate that for many:

1) going above and beyond is necessary to level up (especially to make your business a success)

2) people can find that process enjoyable and rewarding (especially if they do it with people they like)

I think the self-employed specifically get a bad rap about "working too much". I'm sure there are some fortunate souls, but I don't know any business owners that clocked in and clocked out average work weeks to success.

Although I agree that there's a workaholic problem for many as they scale the ladder or consume themselves with work to avoid some other issue in their life.

I just don't like the notion that if you work more than the average Joe you don't have a work/life balance or it will cause all these issues.

Just pulled this up and its worse than I would have guessed - "Only 15% of workers are engaged at their job". This is globally. In the US it's 30% engaged [1]

That's pretty telling to me then. If you aren't engaged at your job - you will think 7 more hours a week is a bad idea and a workaholic. And probably make yourself feel better about using those 7 hours for your hobby or whatever is not your "engaged job"

[1] https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/212045/world-broken...

No my parents misunderstand. They are constantly worrying about money. Some people I think just see others working hard and it's framed on their experience of work.

I grew up a latch key kid and they worked very hard to help me get a great education. Based on this upbringing, I started my family later. As I had planned, I have no financial worries. That unlocks a lot of freedom.

> Like, there are ways of spending time living that don’t revolve around trying to make “gains”; social, financial or any other kind.

No there are not. Everything has a gain of some sort. Even charity work or meditation.

> I notice entrepreneurs using the baby analogy a lot. It’s an interesting distortion of reality...

I have kids and I don't think it's a distortion from that.

You also have to remember that a lot of people choose not to have kids. So yes, that is their figurative baby. Some others may have a dog.

Snarky much? I specifically mentioned friends.

Anyway, globally I know most are on average.

"On average, global internet users spent 144 minutes on social media sites every day"

The Philippines spends almost 4 hours a day.

I obviously know there are things to do that are not social media. No need to be snarky. I just find that most of the people that have mentioned "you work too much" are heavier than the average social media user.

[1] https://www.digitalmarketing.org/blog/how-much-time-does-the...

> Except most people don't already spend 40h per week reading books or practicing their crafts.

If someone does the average only (40 hrs) and does 7 hours of personal learning on their craft in their spare time - nobody would consider them a workaholic. That's what I'm trying to say.

I work more than the average just like many on this board. Well guess what? I'm more skilled than the average. And I have a wider range of skills than most (from software engineering to marketing). I didn't get there by clocking 40 at each role or at my own businesses. And I probably wouldn't have been able to build successful businesses without going deep into learning for years ahead of time.

To many - the extra work hours are a focus on their craft and learning. I'll add marketing tech skills. Or customer acquisition skills. Or finance.

If I was reading marketing books for 7 hours per week that wouldn't be equated with working. That would be called learning.

And to many people - that's a huge part of their life.

Just because my hobby or thirst of information may include "work", doesn't mean people with knitting hobbies after they clock out 40 have a better work/life balance.

To me - some of my work is a hobby because I find it fascinating and I'll explore different industries much like someone may explore different cuisines in their home chef hobby.

Also - I still have more regular hobbies than most people I know, because apart from some Hacker News time, I don't spend 2-3 hours daily on social media like most people.

I don't get the work/life movement (apart from employer abuse of some employees).

Do you truly enjoy your life or not? Life balance is more appropriate to consider.

I'd agree with you on that too. The article says 7 more hours a week is a workaholic though and based on my experience with friends and family - they too make no distinction on whether you enjoy it or not. Even if you tell them, they don't have that experience to understand.

Kind of funny though. Nobody tells an athlete they "train too much". Or a researcher that they "research too much".

That makes more sense to me than the other way around.

As a workaholic, and learnaholic, I did it as a path to financial freedom and to accelerate my learning at at time I knew I had the bandwidth and will. It made me a better entrepreneur and business owner later, which is what I really wanted to do.

But as I've gotten older and have a family now I've been removing obligations for my businesses. And working more normal schedules. Taking random times off to help. Being better at triaging what's really needed from my time.

Yet, I wouldn't have change a thing with my path. It's hard to get to financial freedom and the goal of owning your own businesses with 40 hrs a week.

I don't think working more than the normal is necessarily a bad thing. Some people actually do enjoy their jobs. Or their team. Or they enjoy learning.

I know it's hard for some people to understand why some people are workaholics. I certainly have friends that don't like their jobs that have said I work too much. If you hate your 40 hour job, it's hard to imagine doing any more than that.

In the right environment, the 7+ hours per week extra to be considered a workaholic isn't much different from reading books or practicing your craft in your free time.

I think it's different for entrepreneur workaholics. Your startup is your baby. It's fun. It's challenging. It's rewarding.

And when you're young I think it's great to dedicate to work. You accelerate your learning. You make more money. You meet smart people. I don't know anyone very knowledgeable and skilled for their age that did a work/life balance route.

If you are a workaholic but also a learnaholic, then I don't buy that as this toxic thing that can drive mental and physical health issues. Ok, maybe sleep issues.

I have a few businesses and I'd rather work on them than spend time on social media like my non-workaholic friends.

It's ok for people to say "you work too much", but I don't tell my friends "you spend too much time on Facebook". Maybe I should though?

I do agree that it can be a big problem though. Many dedicate themselves to their work because they are escaping something or avoiding other important obligations.

If that doesn't apply, then go get it!

Life is a hell of a lot more enjoyable when you don't have to worry about finances.

My parents told me "you care too much about money". No I care infinitely about NOT worrying about money. There's a difference.

You can care about money a lot, be focused on financial freedom and not be a Scrooge and accumulating for no reason.

I'm just saying that if a small subset of states (NY/CA/TX/FL,etc) essentially could pick the President as an example, you run the risk of alienating a lot of states, including some that are really important, but have small populations.

And it could get to the point where they wish to exit the union. Let's say you lose the farmland and Alaska and some other important, but low population states.

Is that worth it so everyone could say that the most votes will always win?

We already have a system where candidates can just ignore states. They really can't ignore regions though with the electoral college. They have to have some cross regional appeal to win. That's a good thing.

Straight popular votes is too risky for little gain.

I care more about the states and their rights, the preservation of the union, the country's assets, and other things than ensuring that every vote is counted 1:1 in practice. For many, yes, their vote will not matter depending on who they vote for and where they live. But the founders anticipated more than most realize.

It's like when you have an election with 10 candidates. Nobody gets a majority, but some people are like - whoever gets the most votes should win!

That's not likely to be the best result.

I'm a big fan of keeping it simple. But I don't believe a straight popular vote would be a better system with our history, today's divisiveness and the goals of preserving the union.

If your goal is a United States, then purely populous isn't ideal.

Electoral college essentially requires cross-regional appeal in order to win.

We also have to remember that there are some really key states to the US that don't have population. Ex: Alaska and Hawaii.

It's not good to lose states (or regions) from the union based purely on votes cast from more populated regions.

But it does need to be damn close to # of votes. The electoral college is not perfect but it's pretty masterful.

The US was the most instrumental country in defeating the Axis. Doesn't matter when they joined.

I'm not rewriting history. In fact, I suggested a correction to be more accurate/inclusive based on you clearly having an issue with my original statement. Everyone knows the US was not the only country that defeated the Nazis. I never tried to say they were. I'm not going to list every country involved when we're discussing a current event in the context of US affairs ONLY.

My point still remains in my comment. If you look at the history of the US and what is has accomplished, the recent Capitol issue is not a real problem for the US or the average American family.

You have no problem with the parent's post but a problem with my comment saying the US took down the Nazis and the Axis? A bunch of countries took down the Nazis. So what?

I wouldn't get all sensitive if someone from Russia was talking about them taking down the Nazis as an example of them overcoming something VASTLY more concerning than their current affairs.

If the US was not involved what do you think would have happened? Would you like to amend it so it says "Was the most instrumental country in the Allied victories against the Axis and Nazis?"

My point remains.

Also, the US has had many prior examples of overcoming internal struggles like civil war, civil rights movement, Vietnam. A small group of hillbillies and anarchists storming the capital is not something to be concerned with as the OP suggested.

Took down Nazi Germany, but last week is a great example of something that we can't handle? Really?

None of that really matters. I have no doubt he would have won if he didn't say so many stupid things and act like a disrespectful moron.

I think the election was stolen, but stolen by Trump alone and basically handed over to Biden.

If anything, Trump stole the election from his supporters.

They should be pissed he couldn't show restraint and just shut his mouth to take the victory so he could continue with their favored agenda.

Instead, he actively sabotaged himself. His ego prevented him from seeing that unfold. And nobody could reign him in at any point. That's crazy.

Doesn't matter how many good things you get done if you show everyone you are incapable of humility, incapable of listening to advisors and data and fabricating things on the regular.

Many of CA's problems stem from the propositions that voters buy (are sold) into.

The left side is loose with the truth too. They suppress newsworthy stories or do no reporting on things that are against their agenda. Selective reporting is loose with the truth as well.

So maybe one side fabricates more and one side withholds more. Two ways to be scandalous. They are both profit driven and aren't truthful any way you slice it. They are not trustworthy with news and cannot be relied upon to be objective. Even the shows positioned as news are super biased and full of opinions.

I understand they are entitled to have opinionated segments with personalities. That's fine.

But we have regulations around what is Champagne or Bourbon. And you need a license to cut hair. Maybe anything dubbed "news" should have a standard?

I started watching news from overseas as they seem to be more objective and professional.

Both sides have "news" outlets which are agenda based and profit motivated. And truth doesn't usually sell as well. That's a problem. You can't even trust the fact checker sources as they say "out of context" or "partially true" when it's a fact against their agenda/team. Even the fact checking sites are super biased.

If you align with a side, you attach your identity to it like Paul Graham wrote about with Keep Your Identity Small [1]. People don't like their identity criticized, or want to believe they may be wrong, so they believe what they want and create their own distorted bubble.

My buddy always said "we're told to not talk about religion or politics. Probably the 2 most powerful and influential topics that exist". Now people have started talking about them, but not in a productive fashion.

If you believe someone on the other side is bad based on their views, you can't have a dialogue. This is the greatest tragedy. Disowning family members and friends over their views because you concluded they must be bad people?

Very few people on either side are actually bad. They just have a different experience, they've aligned their identity and team, and there's a ton of forces at play (ex: media, special interests, etc) to keep that divisiveness going.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

> the truth is the US doesn't treat us any better

The parent stated "But the Islamic Republic has no limits. They would shoot and kill and many as it takes." Parent also stated "The government is also quite scared, and to make sure there wont be uprisings, is spreading fear. They execute people and hand cruel sentences to everyone. Last weeks they gave a 10 years sentence to an 18 years makeup artist who had a famous Instagram account. Journalists are executed, etc. People's morale are completely shattered."

You, and others, don't have it better in the US? Really?

I think you are trying to show empathy and I agree with most of your comment, but to me, you can't empathize unless you've experienced it.

And I don't wish to demean experiences of some oppressed people in the US and their experiences (certainly the wrongfully convicted come to mind as a huge injustice), but your comment is not objectively accurate.

> It's no longer in the locker room and it should behave as such.

This website is not locker room talk by ANY means. The creator most likely had the hots for her, wanted to try and make boring nerd stuff more interesting & memorable and get more views. So what?

This is the online, PhD geek version of putting up a Britney Spears pinup. It's a fan/niche site, not the homepage of a major site. The audience is not kids; it's nerds.

She's a public celebrity who leveraged her looks to stardom. And a lot of people had the hots for her. So this guy used the shape of her body to explain conduction bands and valence bands and it's a problem? And an example of the cross that geeks need to bear in saving the internet with web technology?

Your opinion and ideal is not possible unless you censor content and user interactions.

And besides, the web got nasty once the general populace was added.

You can just look at your average friend and family argument on Facebook to see that.

Agreed. My comment wasn't organized well and I can see that it linked the two statements, but I don't mean it like that.

I was referring to credit cards being a service that consumers value because they have fraud protection and other things. The parent was talking about arbitrary restrictions and freezing accounts. That typically happens when you have fraud on cash accounts (bank account, debit card, etc). And a credit card layer works extremely well.

I just had someone accidentally send me money on Venmo and I returned it to them right away. Cash or cash equivalent digital services are nice, but it limits "purchasing power" (great for consumers IMO, bad for merchants), has no rewards, and little to zero fraud protections.

Countries that use chip and pin on debit cards are definitely more secure. This should be in place in all countries. Fraud on a debit card is a nightmare. Fraud on a credit card is not usually a big deal for consumers.

Regardless of the various financial instruments, bitcoin cannot be a real currency when it's value is unstable.

Seriously. Will it do the equivalent of being ~20k then go to 3k. Then come back to 29k? Highly unlikely. As much as people want to predict a collapse, you can't store a ton of money safely outside of Treasuries.

Understood that is a concern for you and some. I hope it gets there. But I'm not sure most people care.

Bitcoin isn't a currency yet. Most people can call up their credit card and get stuff blocked and returned instantly. Debit cards are definitely less of a service in that regard though and shouldn't be used like credit cards.

But the services are valued by most people.

As a currency, and as someone mentioned earlier - it's currently terrible due to it having an unstable valuation.

A lot of ways. And the banks reconcile the cash movement behind the scenes. As I understand it, in a simple example, if you send $1k to someone. And someone at their bank sends $1k to someone at your bank, there's nothing that the banks need to do other than record it.

Exactly. And barring an unlikely collapse, cash/dollar isn't going to fluctuate much at all in value. So... a feature.

At this point, bitcoin is a competitor to gold as an asset store. Maybe it will be more like a currency at some point. But there's a long way to go and a lot of forces against it for that to occur.

Definite arrogance out there. This arrogance also occurs with citizens who don't like it when science is questioned. Real scientists don't shy away from questioning. Questioning is a key part of science and advancements.

And you have science used as a tool when it supports ones agenda. But immediately thrown away when it doesn't align with their emotions and agenda. So we have a pandemic, people trust in the science and the policies to respond, but are all too quick to throw that all away so people can protest, go to church, or let companies film movies. So you believe in science but you are ok with making exceptions for certain things? How consistent.

If we allow the agendas of mobs to disrupt science, it becomes a lot less useful.

Many leading scientists and groups don't have the courage to stick behind the science either, lest they ruffle the feathers of those who donate.

There are plenty of scientists that are bought and paid for just like politicians. We have a long track record of this with cigarettes, pharma, the sugar industry, war on fat, etc.

Yes. You redirect after POST.

I highly doubt that's a significant percentage but I don't need to defend someone's sex toy even though you felt the need to defend a virtual girlfriend. That's their deal.

But a virtual/robotic girlfriend is pathetic to me. In almost any country if you told a female you had one, they'd think that too. In fact, it would likely remove any chance you had at dating them if you wanted to. That's reality.

What I referenced earlier is a real thing in Japan. And a concern to many, including the government.

"a study by the Japanese government showed there to be 500,000 hikikomori (shut-ins) aged 16 to 39. “The initial findings before 2000 were that it was mostly young people. However, we have seen a marked increase in hikikomori amongst middle-aged and old people,” he says." [1]

For such a populated island, the Japanese are very lonely. A lot has to do with the aging population of course. Loneliness is a sad thing.

"A whole industry also has sprung up to provide company to younger customers, primarily men, who aren’t having human relationships. (A 2013 study found that 30 percent of Japanese men in their 20s and 30s had never dated.) Gatebox has developed the anime-inspired VR-companion, tailored toward younger men who, due to long work hours or other reasons, prefer the company of a virtual partner." [1]

Separately, I'll add that I find it ridiculous that a sizable percentage of Australians don't wear shoes. Almost every animal over there wants to kill you. Why do they go shoeless in public? It's not a poor country. Has to be something else. Can you provide any insight?

[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/japan-loneliness-aging-robots...