helicalmix

Why assume a pithy tweet is the only mechanism they’re using?

Oh, this is an interesting point that I think I agree with on some level.

Are you saying superachievers can’t teach others to be superachievers, or are you saying that superachievers can’t teach non achievers to be achievers

Why

Can you give me an example of a very ambitious goal that doesn’t fall under the western definition you posted, and yet, can not benefit from the article?

?

The article says “very” ambitious. So there’s no contradiction here

I get what you’re saying, and I agree that there’s a survival bias for all winners. But the pendulum swings too far if you believe you can’t learn anything at all from winners.

Can you say that, for all winners of any field, there’s no correlation between the winners and the losers that is not attributable to luck?

I’m also amazed how people will take a self-improvement article like this, and take it so personally. Like yes, pg was lucky to have a lot of things work out for them, but that doesn’t mean his advice here (which encompasses more than just “work hard”) is invalid for everyone just because it’s invalid for some people.

There’s literally a note that says the text assumes you’re very ambitious. If you have no desire to work towards some definition of “greatness”, I assume that you’re not ambitious, and the text doesn’t apply to you.

Which is ok! You don’t need to be ambitious, but it also means you shouldn’t take this essay so personally.

I mean, I agree it's a pretty awful way of reaching the truth or mass consensus, but in terms of gauging how much interest a certain subject has in absolute terms, I think it's a good gauge.

What I'm trying to get at is that the original commenter is implying that people rarely question the value of economic growth, but if you google search the term "economic growth" generically, with no prompt on questioning its value, on a popular forum site, you'll see that one of the top questions is questioning its value.

> A reasonable question, and one not terribly often asked, is "What is the point of the economy, growth, etc?"

This is asked all the time. Google "economy growth reddit" and you'll see a bunch of posts questioning why it's important.

> I deal with it regularly, since my office is a standalone, off grid power system. I just use less energy, by an order of magnitude or so, in the winter - and I bundle up out here.

I mean, yes, on margin for a single person, this reduces overall energy consumption. However, cities are more energy-efficient per capita.

Take a look at the energy expenditure per-capita states by state, and you'll see that the states with the smallest energy expenditure per-capita generally have the largest cities, and the ones with the most energy expenditure are rural states: https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/....

How exactly does having a blog post about the author’s own mistakes affect the validity of his criticisms against Google?

Lol, it’s hilarious how decent programmers can very feasibly make 300k+ a year, but somehow, a course that’s selling point is to make you more decent is too expensive at $30 a month. That’s literally skipping a single night of eating out.

If you’re point is that you can’t trust the program to deliver, that’s valid, but make sure to make the judgement call AFTER you check out their free content first.

Honestly? I’d argue that they should be charging more. The people who are truly interested in investing in long term learning generally have a higher willingness to pay, while everyone else will balk at anything that isn’t free.