tiffanyg

First, I absolutely loved the "age check" at the beginning. It was an absolute ROAST of the concept. Questions likely MOST answerable by people still in "secondary schools". By nerdier ... members of that set, in fact. And yet, exactly the veneer that, say, a "Niedermeyer" might 'take at face value', so-to-speak. Lampooning the (effectively 'Confucianist', whether Asian or not) 'adults' that way was such a highlight.

Second - ha, I can barely remember much in the way of details, such as they were, from the actual games! If anything, I remember that there were some enjoyable puzzles, including in the realm of dialogue and 'moves' towards goals and sub-goals. Those games were really like the ice-cream sundaes all games were at the time, with a ... slightly different 'cherry on top' than the type found in other games.

(I still preferred King's Quest, Space Quest, 7th Guest ... Under A Killing Moon ... so many games more or less similar in fundamentals, but, different fleshy drupes on top. And that, is the kind of apparently warped thinking [as judged against the majority, it seems] that leads to browsing this site right now.)

*And yet, somehow, I seem to have been misled by Mr Brooks as to what sorts of tests would be involved when it came to 'UNIX'*

The easiest way to deal with people like this is by putting it in 'the language' they speak. While I'd love, personally, to see some direct regulation, legislation, etc. that doesn't involve turning this into yet another line 'in the books' / in the annual reports etc. of companies ... and feeds, arguably, even more into that sort of thinking ... for multiple reasons there are extensive practical issues with doing that in the US currently. It'd certainly be helpful in the longer term if we could get some people away from viewing everything through the lens of numbers - especially conflating OTHER PEOPLE with "format strings" in Excel (effectively). But, I believe in being practical along with strategic. If such metrics are needed, private-party lawsuits are needed ... if government (outside of perhaps putting some basic accounting in place &/ the justice system and current tort laws) is not an option for sorting out disputes and correcting bad behavior, particularly some forms of traditional government regulation, and the bottom-line is king ... then let's use what is available or might be put in place, ultimately speaking the 'language' necessary to push things in a more reasonable direction.

* Not uniformly distributed, for sure, but increasingly visible on average - in part, thanks MBA programs, but also, somewhat relatedly, decades of work and marketing from people who really want to turn the clock back ... wannabe robber-barons (https://youtu.be/DqgvHUg_vxY) and even those with plantation 'wetdreams'

** Incidentally, this is related to the kind of "mob rule" that outright dangerous politicians like Trump represent. Importantly, dangerous to EVERYONE, even those in the cult, though they almost certainly don't know the true extent of the danger, even remotely. In essence, without any principles / rule of law established in notions like actual justice, truth, fairness, equitable treatment, etc., any forces driving large systems involving people will tend to devolve into forms of mob rule. Whether it's markets for goods and services, the "marketplace of ideas", etc.

What is more and more absent in America, in particular, in public discourse especially, but also in certain business sectors of, in some cases, outsized importance in this entire 'picture', is the kind of principled viewpoints, ideas, thinking, etc. that have repeatedly re-formed this country at those critical moments when it might have broken / not become the exemplar that it often has been. Whether that happens this time as well remains to be seen, I think.

That's a massive topic ... all of this is ... and I am really no expert in much of this, so caveat there, but, I have enough of a sense and of the details of history and the differences in outcomes at different times and in different places to offer the commentary I am right now. More importantly, regardless of some of the background / mechanisms, the actual behaviors are clear enough in recent times / events / data. I.e., what I've written outside of these footnotes.

Realistically, though, the comparatively slow march - in "WarGames" terms, but not human lifespan terms - towards the conclusion for our species, clearly won't result in equal losing over given near-term timeframes. That is almost certainly one of the calculations* for some players who continue to push destructive patterns.

Human activity (think economic) is incredibly interdependent as well as massively interwoven with an incredible array of aspects of our planet. There are always 'externalities' - i.e., the cost of goods and services probably ALWAYS (even in really 'primitive' economies) is missing a little bit in the accounting, so-to-speak. For example, when Virginia was fairly well-settled by Europeans, with many of the original inhabitants pushed out, tobacco was king. But growing tobacco is very hard on the land - tobacco is a crop that depletes soil very quickly. The solution, at the time, was to just develop a new plot after several years. Land was absurdly abundant from the perspective of the colonists of the time - and people like Lord Fairfax had tremendous tracts (his represented a substantial part of the current state). All of the decades and centuries that went into producing soil that led to great tobacco production was an externality. The environment, original inhabitants of all types (including ALL organisms), etc. contributed to ... or, perhaps better, SUBSIDIZED the tobacco production for those who moved in. And those who moved in generally never paid any of that back. It did cause problems for some, and people did switch crops grown over time ... were generally forced to adopt more sustainable practices ... (as well as ceasing, ultimately, other ways of externalizing costs generally FAR more reprehensible), but, the debt wasn't really repaid in just about any real way be those responsible. And, who actually, in some sense, effectively stole (beyond all of the other shades and types of stealing in the whole story, as we might frame it today) a massive amount of 5hit that it's not clear they had such a 'right to'.

All of this can get quite complicated, and that itself illustrates some of the problem - there is no 'analytical solution'. There are always trade-offs of various types, and practical 'solutions' come together one way or another over time. But, a lot of current issues don't have the solution of 'just move to another plot', no matter what dimwits like Musk think or say. And, even those who have some conscience and conscientiousness are always faced with the sort of impossible problems of ethics you are touching on. But, the passage of time will always lead to practical solutions - one way or another.

* Or part of a set of rationalizations, for those with a conscience of some sort - possibly even coupled w/ true delusions or grandeur, such as saving the species as a whole. Likely delusional in some heads, outright dishonesty in others.

You're both right that this kind of language is used non-stop by people in certain roles today - especially politicians. Of course, that has always been the case in politics at any point in history I have any real knowledge about. In a courtroom, there are some real differences.

First, certain types of statements may be considered impermissible, and challenges are possible in various forms during various phases of a trial or hearing. Further, people who work in these environments tend to acquire a sort of "rhet-dar" (and a rather explicit form) that too many who don't get this kind of 'practice' every (work) day don't. And, of course, instructions can be provided to juries to disregard certain statements / evidence depending on challenges / various issues with something brought into a legal proceeding. Finally, at actual decision time, while rhetoric can influence, whether the decision is made by a judge or jury, the emphasis will be on facts, laws, interpretations of laws, etc.

Fluff rhetoric like "out of context" in an opening statement is quite empty, especially by the time a proceeding is wrapping up. Always makes a good sound bite for the external world though.

I can't personally be much more specific since my own legal experiences (of various types) have been ad hoc and infrequent. I considered pursuing a degree several times, never did. In particular, anyone reading would be right to not consider this in any way an authoritative comment. I will provide one ref though that has some pretty good additional info from what I had a chance to skim when looking for a bit more to give y'all. I'm sure there are others here far more expert than I, perhaps one will flesh things out better than I may have - but, giving at least a sense of the role that that kind of journalist-bait might play in an actual legal proceeding seemed worth something...

https://law.temple.edu/aer/2019/03/23/opening-statement-v-ar...

Without propagating dimensions, my error rate can be a real issue. I wouldn't trust the final number on a full, say, roughly "letter-sized" (US 'wonderland' system) page. By propagating, I might trust the result 75 or 80% of the time...

(I do rather doubt I could have been an even average NASA "computer" given the opportunity to do a great deal more of these kinds of calculations than I have had to... my mind is much better at generating random numbers and nonsense than doing anything 'mechanical'. AFAIK, NASA had no call for such skills in the "age of human computers".) :)

To expand / clarify slightly: REM sleep is absolutely essential to "higher animals". It is not, though, "deep sleep" in the sense that "long slow delta wave" sleep is often called "deep sleep", and the "NREM" stages of sleep tend to be "deeper" (in the sense of physiology 'slower' / harder to awaken) than REM sleep.

This Wikipedia article could use some editing, at least for clarity, but is certainly a solid enough reference and starting point for further reading (for anyone interested): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_cycle

Apnea is incredibly stressful on the body / mind. Disruption before REACHING REM sleep (one of the reasons REM may be referred to as "deep sleep" in non-technical language) is among the worst of the effects. Since most of a single cycle is NOT REM sleep but rather stages occurring before REM, REM is a phase most often prevented by episodes of apnea. But, the physiological stress also relates to disruption of other phases as well.

Besides sometimes profound effects on cognitive function varying over days and weeks depending on the severity / frequency of "apneic events", the stresses that accumulate over time tend to cause cardiovascular problems, especially.

As usual, sites like Cleveland Clinic's and Mayo Clinic's etc. give good info (short of the more technical scientific review articles you can search for on PubMed, for example). Cleveland Clinic's seems quite good to me (perhaps a bit better in clarity regarding phases of sleep than the Wikipedia article, as well):

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/8718-sleep-ap...

Edit: you wrote "long deep REM cycles" - that's a reasonable phrasing and would also 'frame' effects overall. So, if it's unclear from my writing (ha, write after I 'dinged' a Wikipedia article), there is no conflict (depending on exactly how one reads these messages, of course) between my message and the parent. To clarify, it was not my intention to come off that way (but I see that certain emphases might suggest that, apologies if it reads that way to some!)

To quote Pratchett directly:

"Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized."

:)

* Directing / organizing / etc. the activities of groups, efforts, etc. towards specific (typically 'orderly') goals

** And "fifth Beatle" of the apocalypse ... (also, "deus ex machina" of the story, IIRC, though funny and insightful even from that perspective - as usual w/ Pratchett)

Then there's always the sort of henchman / understudy, here, in the world of "milkmen" ... https://www.redmeat.com/max-cannon/nourishing-nectar-nubbins... ... "I hate you Milkman Dan".

Capitalism and other features of the system currently used in many of the most developed countries is great during development of markets. The performance is excellent, which makes perfect sense.* You run into problems when markets reach saturation. And, markets have never been remotely as saturated as now. Now, you're literally talking about how finely you can slice the sum total of ATTENTION, period. Think "TikTok".

Basically, you see a lot more "zero sum" behavior at such points. I.e., it's much more just Darwinian** ... some winning, some losing.

One example of this type of strategy that I find distasteful is the "retail reset". Every 6 months or so, the retail reset dairy visits the supermarket I shop at most frequently, forcing me to re-find at least some of what I want to buy. It rarely causes me to buy anything unusual or new to me, but, I understand why they do it. It's not "terrible", but there's a feel to it of a certain ... lack of morals / ethics... feeds into a pervasiveness to that feel ... I believe it to be subtly but moderately bad for societies overall...

Couldn't find a more authoritative source / less markety site quickly, but here's at least some of the description:

https://canadasbeststorefixtures.com/why-a-store-reset-boost...

Of course, this kind of thinking is taught and exchanged among the business-oriented. Makes "the disease" worse (more pervasive) ...

* "Command economy" makes very little if you actually care about overall performance. It's the problem anyone faces when trying to model [e.g., "data assimilation" techniques, very powerful but enough data is essential] - not enough data! Of course, in today's world, it might be increasingly possible to make a more "command" style work, from the data side ... and, if you want to go for that "panopticon look" ... China has headed back that way ... again, in some sense. But, it's really still not good ... you're up against all sorts of other human factors, even if you HAD the data.

** Edit: or noticeably Darwinian (in a more common usage sense). This behavior of systems regarding "niches" and competition applies at all times. It's when the "empty space(s)" or "low density space(s)" are occupied that the more directly / actively competitive behavior w/ more clear negatives for various 'participants' tends to emerge.

Possibly a 'spork', but certainly no 'razor' ....

My wager (3 cents): a slime mold that adopted "potato chip bag camouflage" so that it could secret itself to the safety of the ocean via a shipping container - all part of a desperate bid to escape land and the impending calamities of climate change, including those already seen in its rates on home insurance!

"Ignoramus et ignorabimus." Turtles all the way down...

I thought, of course, of the always attractive "breakthrough" possibility, but ... in particular, fusion isn't it.* So, deployment of renewables is the obvious solution ... and, solar, in particular, has made massive strides in the past decade+.

What you're talking about is actually much more attractive, though. Sounds like a potentially great implementation / execution. And, all of this - much more rapid deployment for (electric) power generation, or, even better, as you propose, I think - seems like exactly the context in which a new "TVA" (Tennessee Valley Authority) or similar (maybe even "Apollo Project") would be the way to actually get it done with the urgency that seems warranted.

Of course, the US coffers have been so raided, it may take the kinds of "national pain" experienced around a century ago to generate the political "housecleaning" required to, well really, "right the "USS USA". As usual, it's not clear the will is there in the electorate. But, I'd say this much for sure: as old as I am now, the behavior of people older than me has disgusted me in many ways for years, and anyone younger than me should be thoroughly pissed off, I think. I don't want to veer into more of a rant - suffice it to say ... if you look at the benefits a certain generation enjoyed, then consider their voting for policies / tax breaks likely to deny such benefits to future generations (already happening, of course - take a look at college tuitions in the US, for just one example), it's a travesty.

In any case, I think another commenter raised a good point regarding the materials requirement. I'd imagine that would be "paid back" many times over very easily by the scheme overall, but don't know for sure ... I know there have been issues with having enough of the right type of sand to make high (enough) purity silicon wafers for chip manufacture ... but, my knowledge is very limited in these areas in general. If anyone has a real handle on what the materials side of this type of scheme looks like, I'd be interested...

* It was always such an attractive idea ... sounds so perfect ... until you know about neutron generation / flux and realize that something like a "tokamok", in particular, is just not likely to be economical AT ALL (the problem being that without some method to contain neutrons or method for preventing generation, you bombard your materials and end up having to replace / "decontaminate" / etc. far too quickly ... at least, based on my sense of best methods available around 10 years ago ... last time I was involved in any work even marginally related to anything in that field). In any case, even if we have or can determine ways of further reducing neutron generation or ... doing something w/ Higgs or something to deal better w/ the neutron problem, seems like it'd take more like a "miracle" than a breakthrough at this point for it to have any bearing on the climate problem on the timescale relevant.

Edit: realized couple oversights / clarifications (not that it's likely to matter, but, prefer to put in anyway): I have nothing against fission apart from its merits. It's been expensive and track record hasn't been good - plus waste, proliferation, etc. concerns. Practically, it's the cost issue (generally related to the other issues I mentioned, of course). I keep waiting for the advanced / modular / "standard design" reactors we've been promised for years... the track record vis-a-vis AP-1000 (already rather old, but, at least deploying) is not confidence inspiring.

Regarding "certain generation", I've known too many from that generation who sat in taxpayer funded jobs essentially not fulfilling THEIR responsibilities as they RAILED against taxes and the POOR. I have a dim view based on personal experience - too many I knew were spoiled and hypocritical to an unbelievable degree. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty who were decent etc. So, obviously, I don't mean to blanket condemn any generation ... usual qualifications etc. apply.

PowerPoint, for all its putative and/or quite real flaws and bad ... points ... is, in some sense, one of the most powerful tools in the modern world. How many decisions have hinged on PowerPoint presentations? How many decisions might have been subtly affected by aspects of the design and implementation of PowerPoint (over versions / time)? ...

It's absolutely been hugely useful at times, and, also, seemingly a preview for some Dante-style "ring of hell".

In any case, I salute Mr. Austin, offer my condolences to friends and family*, and ... well, I was going to point to a comedic take on PowerPoint that I love but it doesn't fit w/ this news, so, simply: R.I.P. Mr. Austin.

* Seriously, not just as a matter of form - I have used it for years through good and bad. I definitely feel some connection, though marginal comparatively.

Not familiar w/ the company or details in that space at the moment, but I am aware of the basic principles** apparently being used here. So, this seems somewhat more than the usual lip service, which is good to see.

* Along the lines of wonderous marketing phrases like "responsible corporate citizens" (or "stewardship") ... to replace actual concern for your community, one of the "efficiencies" brought to us by 'professionalizing' business management in the form of "MBAs" / burying real lives and consequences in Microsoft(R) Excel(TM) "spreadsheets"

** Punintentional ... bit oblique, but, some might enjoy

Picking up a habit of 'reaching for dialectic' is one of the most valuable things I've ever learned. I've found that it even helps to 'decouple' 'ideas' from 'identity' more completely and thoroughly than quite a lot of learning about and practicing 'mindfulness' in various forms - at least, for someone like me. And, that is about as helpful as anything gets if you want to be able to "see clearly" ... to get more clarity in terms of what is "more actually true" (as opposed to whatever mix of nonsense and shades of truth(s) any of us may have in our heads at any given time).

In that vein, and I may have written this on HN before ... not sure and not bothering to check this second: true 'skepticism'** STARTS with skepticism of one's own thoughts! It's about as inefficacious as 'methods' get to spend all of one's time picking apart ideas and 'information' and the like presented from 'the outside'*** while spending no time subjecting what's presented internally to any amount of scrutiny at all.

* vs. a "parsimonious" solid set of wisdom with some breadth even if tending towards a little "ad hoc" - yet, it all hangs off common thread(s), IMO

** In more of an original [Ancient Greek] sense than modern connotation

*** I.e., NOT "the half behind the eyes", as Terry Pratchett phrases it in one of his books

That has nothing to do with this SPECIFIC argument, I didn't read a word of it. I.e., I'm not singling out this particular set of essays / arguments / etc. The problem is much more fundamental - this boils down to claiming that "the universe is 'solved'".

That one species that got to just enough of a base level of mental ability to be able to think, when looking in the mirror, "hello, gorgeous"... and, on one dinky planet in one non-descript arm of some random spiral galaxy in a universe so absurdly vast that it makes our lack of understanding of ourselves, and the one planet we live on, a 'ING FOOTNOTE, ... can come up with some sort of rigorous argument to "uphold our magnificence" and "preeminence" ... as, apparently (to some), both "God's [special] children", and also "God" ourselves in deciding such "cases".

The universe isn't solved, and I'll take any odds on universe vs. humans anyone wants to offer.

Unless you're being more metaphorical ...?

Step 1: Lose a lot of money in crypto.

Step 2: ¿

Step 3: Understand that it's a ponzi scheme & try to use what you've learned to recoup some of the loss.

Also, I've taken the liberty of adding the inexplicably missing crucial "step 2" in the comments from both of you. You're welcome.

To be fair, some states have passed legislation regarding single-use plastics, and it's not as though measures in the EU didn't provoke whinging and pushback ... China, and Japan, among others, are somewhere between the US and EU when it comes to regs at least.

But, these are difficult measures to "sell" - the effects of this kind of legislation are immediate, impacting consumers, companies, etc. ... and "hit pocketbooks", in particular. The benefits are nebulous*, relate to some "ill-defined future", and don't seem to have tangible impacts today (except possibly negative) on ability to make a living / continue living.

Unfortunately, these factors in our current system(s) underlie a rigidity (resistance to changes) that bodes extremely poorly, IMO, for adaptations required to face the absolute sh1tstorm of challenges converging on societies like the water from "Lake Conemaugh" after the "South Fork Dam" break (i.e., when what was formerly protective focused problems avoided in former years, delivering decades worth of suffering in an ~hour-sized package).**

This isn't intended to suggest pessimism or apathy, but, rather, how much energy - voting, getting involved in politics, etc. - will be required from the (generally younger) citizens of many countries to break through the momentum of "legacy systems" to create some of the changes necessary.

The current indications aren't great when orange clown*** is still dominating the news many days...

* To the vast majority of sheltered "modern people" - who don't fish, say, or look at rain droplets with magnification, or have other occasions for encountering the really massive problem that's been developing for decades now

** https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

*** And a whole circus and set of sideshows built around other grifters

Edit: one other point - my current favored "solution" is simply burning the plastic (most can be IIRC) in cement kilns and the like. Unsurprisingly, I think, to anyone with some understanding of "polymer chemistry", plastic isn't so "inert" when exposed to the harsh physical environment over the course of decades. In some sense, worse, one of the properties that makes plastic so useful, also means that most biological systems don't have enzymatic / other machinery for dealing with / processing plastic. There has been more burning of plastic, in recent years - it's not "great", but, it's actually still about the least harmful option for waste streams that can't be (practically) reused, recycled, etc. ... (yet). There have been some reasonably good articles on plastics recycling in some of the more mainstream sources that discuss burning (esp. for cement production / in "cement kilns")... I'd provide but kinda rushed (sorry - I need to stop writing long-ish comments when time is tighter), but, web searches should likely turn those up easily enough.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/look-at-me-im-the-captain-now

From a 2013 "big budget" movie (Tom Hanks etc.) about a piracy incident during a period when the Somali coast was notoriously dangerous:

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

If setting out sailing etc., three regions, in particular, absolutely warrant a look into advisories etc.: the waters around Malaysia / south of China / etc., off the east / west coasts of Africa (more recently, west, but sometimes east), and certain areas of the Caribbean.

The ocean is much like other regions with human traffic in the sense of there being "bad areas" ... but, it's also different in ways that kill people all the time. It's not worse than land, per se, but, definitely easy to get into trouble without at least a little education (generally, best to get from reputable people / services that exist in particular regions - of course, you can still get into trouble, but, much less so than people who just hop on vessels with no real experience for "an exciting adventure" ... too easy for it to get way more exciting than almost anyone raised on "Hollywood" movies wants in real life).

Years ago, "dark triad incarnate" was checked by lack of nearly as established a position* and a longer timeline over which to grow and consolidate wealth and power (which does require time and attention).

He's past 50 now, and started transitioning into his own "late Putin phase" (substitute your own 'favorite megalomaniac' at will) quite aggressively in the past 5 years (especially). Now the game is using that wealth and power for a kind of ultimate "spoiled child fantasy camp".

Regardless of how directly any of them channel the childishness of the archetype, the traits are always there - "I'm special", "your (parent-style) 'rules' don't apply to me"**, "I will get my way", etc. It's the whole point, and the motivation that people who don't think this way miss. The motivation that makes the behavior make at least some sense.

Musk is one of the real extreme examples in terms of how transparent the behavior is - whenever he does something that seems hard to explain, ask yourself how the situation might look "in a sandbox". Seriously. This may sound like typical rhetoric, but I'm serious: try it. Twitter is a perfect example - "if I can't have it my way, then I'll make sure no one can have it" ...

... and, just like in the analogy, there are layers of goals. I.e., it's also good if while we (may ultimately) destroy "the sandbox", we can use it to harm those we don't like who've been playing in it. Either directly (e.g., firing employees of Twitter), or in various indirect ways (reporting "troublesome users" to their authoritarian governments [when applicable], etc.).

* Specifically, still needing something from others here and there - most recently and likely the final example: funding for Twitter deal

** People who think this way can't help 'telegraphing' - it's one way they identify members of their own flock, in part. "Nanny state", "snowflake", etc.

"Snowflake" has got to be a personal favorite. Every time someone uses that one, I know I'm going to need a WHINE break after a few sentences... https://youtu.be/tl4VD8uvgec?si=H2MadAVDduLfolfS&t=1m17s

https://youtu.be/mH3La3RJdNA?si=qIojw1j5NkH0pBCj

... cause that seems like a pretty kickin' party to me.

Oh, wait, there's nothing legal about some of what goes on at those concerts. So, not even that level of fun. Gotcha.

I think the current antagonism is something that started with management many decades ago.

I think the pattern goes back, well, as far as you want to go back. There have always been individuals who think that they* should be in charge. There's a continual 'tug-of-war'.

For centuries, only a very few people were able to participate directly - when the world largely consisted of monarchies, empires, "hoards", and all of that**. Ancient Athens, and more recent "Enlightenment" ideas about "natural rights" and "mandate of the masses" etc. have generally been unusual in practice until quite recently.***

The data strongly support much more shared power past a certain level of technological and economic development, but, even if aware of the myriad examples, people with power-lust aren't going to stop. It's directly contradictory to that worldview, ambition, etc. - in multiple ways. And, any given person is likely to tack more towards or away from such notions over time, depending on multiple factors.

Right now, it seems there's much more interest, in multiple realms, on consolidating power, again.

Caveat populus.

* Not consciously intentional play on "the royal we"

** Before that, there's a lot more variation, AFAIK, but also a lot less confidence and evidence - though, ancient Egypt and China (three kingdoms etc.) come to mind as particularly early examples with solid enough information regarding ruling over large numbers of people by individuals (and various attempts &/ smaller "kingdoms" etc.)

*** "Radical", some might say "insolent"

See here for pre-release addenda, all that's available on the public internet this moment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/dv9j08/what_are...

Now, if yinz'll excuse me, the driver in the opposite lane going straight has out-of-state plates. So, I need to stop typing this message to peel out / teach them a valuable lesson about right-of-way when the stop light changes in Yinzerville - as I head to a city-government-sanctioned hazard-light parking spot directly in front of Primanti's to pick up my slaw with fries and sandwich garnish (and sugar with coffee and cream).

1) Crafting some of these hats require an incredible level of human skill and time - i.e., a sort of fixed cost in time for someone to reach that level, and then a variable cost in crafting one hat with that skill. This page lists, for example, "18 Master Weavers who could actually weave one, and it would take months to do it." for the category of Super Fino. Thousands of dollars for such a hat sounds quite reasonable.

2) These are actual physical items with real function and form. Some of the function is in the form. Some of the function is in the intangible "status symbol" realm that nevertheless has a direct impact in the real world. Whether cultural, subconscious, etc., individual "presentation" can make a difference in business dealings (getting a contract vs. not), attracting the interest of desirable partners for romance &/ family formation, etc.

3) Our economics are always screwy ... the drive for efficiency is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it's great (focusing purely on provision for humans, in needs and perhaps a bit further along in, say, "Maslow's hierarchy") to be able to produce more goods and services (perhaps, there are further issues there I'll avoid for now) less expensively, so more people can have needs and wants and all that met. But, of course, the flip side is that there are fewer jobs available (at some point, another complexity I'll sidestep going into non-germane to primary point depth on). This can drive a more extreme "bimodal distribution" to prices - those who continue to use "traditional methods" have to charge not only more, comparatively (and in light of general inflation), but, more in a more absolute sense due to lower volumes, etc.

4) Of course, some of this is also likely getting into the realm of items like NFTs, iPhones, etc. - the purposeful (market) positioning by those selling as "luxury" or "status" items. I.e., more intentional, where, of course, comparisons to Barnum and general derision by people "on the outside" is a normal sort of "organic" byproduct that perhaps seemingly paradoxically can actually further the symbolism and strength of marketing / "story".

5) Apparently, these types of hats bear some resemblance to trees. Next time I see someone wearing one, I might cut their head off so I can "count the rings" (inside the hat). ;)

J/k on the last point.

Probably. Kek.

Edit: my random number generator (aka, "brain") informed me in the past several minutes that it is required (as regards "the service") for me to add this take on marketing from the great Bill Hicks: https://youtu.be/tHEOGrkhDp0?si=TPnIwP0HymFYZZkC - which, of course, gave the universe another opportunity to give me the finger (why yes, I DO want to know about how I can meet the one for me "on Bumble", ugh). 'And thus ends the lesson' and general kvetching session, with this video that fairly well captures my feelings these days. Enjoy!

I refrained. ;)

That's an absurdly strong and inaccurate statement that feeds into psychological walls that then get erected in the minds of the young and perpetuate ad infinitum. The psychological research here is very clear: stressing work, over some sort of ethereal innate 'talent', in ANY area makes a massive difference in skill attainment.

I don't have time this moment to get into this in any depth, and, it depends, of course, what specifically you mean by "truly have an aptitude", but, too many people have a view of math, in particular, as some kind of magical realm only "truly accessible" to a few. There's a lot that goes into forming the basis for skill in any domain - quite a lot of that likely reflects all sorts of extremely early life parameters and events prior, even, to acquisition of language. The "playing field" is never "level" in any pursuit. But, based on my own experiences and knowledge, there's a mysticism or whatever surrounding some subjects that's just bizarre, IMO.

I would personally, in light of what I've seen to date, draw a very direct analogy with the formation of an NBA player (as an example). Someone can start playing very young, become incredibly adept, and easily never get to the height, strength, etc. (typically) required to make it to NBA level. Nevertheless, these people go on to be trainers, coaches, announcers, etc. This is even more relevant in fields that aren't in the "tournament career" realm.

Often, what holds people back the most, is substantially unfounded statements like yours.

Here's a jumping off point for further info (not enough time to provide more complete refs, currently, apologies): https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-procrastination-...

You can impose any standards you want - if all you're training on and testing for is ~regurgitation of facts, that's what's going to be optimized for - all of the forces at play will push even the best of teachers (those who might try to provide something other than the driest most immediate-term "goal-oriented" course / experience) towards this terrible (minimum) "standard".

At this point, I highly doubt this will ever be fixed - and certainly, can't see that happening in my lifetime. In the past few decades, hostility, and outright MARKETING of hostility, towards education has increased dramatically. Education is perennially underfunded and massively inequitable from locality to locality (and at even "finer grained" levels). Most of the fights around education these days are so far removed from questions of SERVICE and ARE WE DOING THE BEST WE CAN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS? that there's just no way to imagine any serious or appropriate attempt can be made to address the real inadequacies of our recent & current system.

It's truly a shame. We'd all be far better off if there was more investment in, respect for, etc. education, teachers, STUDENTS (our kids), etc. Partly, this is a generational issue that even gets at the voting power of generations ... It is possible that Gen X, in part by being a smaller "generation" and in part because of their own experiences of being comparatively ignored and pushed to the side by the priorities of other generations [particularly, the older generations] across their own "lifecycles", will actually help swing things back a little towards student-oriented service (so-to-speak). But, I'm not 'optimistic' either regarding intention or, even more so, actual action.

It's a kind of tragedy, blasting people IN THEIR FORMATIVE YEARS with piles of facts in such a way as to kill off INTEREST and the possibility of real UNDERSTANDING, guaranteeing we end up with a far less informed, engaged, and healthy COMMUNITY and PEOPLE than we might otherwise have.

* Most, seemingly, quite ill-advised, unfortunately. Ill-advised based on research and the experiences of people who have spent years studying (sometimes, even, with a methodical empiricism!) "pedagogy" and "child psychology", and those who have worked on and refined models that tend to have real advantages (e.g., "Montessori" comes to mind - the data is mixed but generally supportive of the benefits of this comparatively grounded in science method, see, e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-017-0012-7). Part of this is because of various "stakeholders" engaging in the usual tug-of-war BS where only lip-service is paid to the actual target population this essential SERVICE is supposed to be CENTERED ON...

But, IPOs became rather passé post-2010ish, for the truly depraved. Too much regulation, you see. SPACs are ever so much more exploitable. Though, IPOs continue to be successfully used to funnel money from the have-nots to the already-haves.** And so, here we are.

Yes, there have been people legitimately trying to use SPACs to finance efforts they truly believed in. My sense, having traded SPACs myself during the height of the frenzy was: much less than 50% had much of any real legitimacy. And, solidly more than 10% or even 20% were scammy as hell ... particularly at that time when the money taps were wide open and fraud was absolutely rife across many vehicles etc. (helped along by ... survey says: the very "internet" Silicon Valley made such a massive economic force...).

* On a much larger scale and with a much more "legitimate face" than some of the other "operators" better known in this area, generally

** See, for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/venture-capital-big-tech-ant... ... I'd provide more refs in general, but sadly, super pressed for time right now ... so, obviously, I would advise anyone to take what I've written without solid refs with the usual grain of salt. Plenty can be found with some searches (quite neutral searches ... i.e., no "leading the search engine" required).