zero-sharp

It's related to self-censorship. Look at what happened to Martin Kulldorff. He was a statistician at Harvard that had some controversial takes during the pandemic. He got dismissed. Pretty sure you can find accounts from him about the pressure he faced.

It became clear during the pandemic that you couldn't communicate nuance to the public and that people were just picking sides out of fear.

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you and I have no idea what everyone else is smoking.

My understanding is that the principle is just the observation that our existence implies that a certain chain of events occurred in the past. That isn't the same thing as saying that the chain of events necessarily had to occur.

This is such a weird comment. It's like an attempt to trivialize the article by stating something completely nontrivial with a lot of confidence.

...

Can you guys stop shitposting?

Of course it's rational to vote for your interests. I'm just surprised about Trump's continued career, despite the litigation and January 6th. I guess next time our representatives will have to up the ante with their rhetoric, lies, and defiance, just like Trump. And after more of our political system starts to disintegrate and the Democrats get their way, we can also say "we were just voting for our interests too."

His appeal is his rejection of the status-quo. I get it. I thought the exit polling suggested that the economy and immigration were the big factors. I just have a hard time accepting that we have to put a person in charge that likely doesn't respect the democratic process in order to (supposedly) represent those who haven't been heard before.

My intention isn't to assassinate his character, but he was at one point facing non trivial legal charges, right? The conversation is just ridiculous because we're at a point where we have to talk about the validity of our judicial process?

just ask your friends. Next step up from that would be people on the internet.

There was a long conversation here just a few weeks ago about Ozempic and there was a general sentiment that it would just be the future for weight loss.

Lol you really just linked me to a research paper. Good luck trying to get your everyday gym go-er to match their training volume in one session in an effort to save time (as per the link). But I was actually trying to say something different.

If your routine involves the squat and you progressively load it each week, yes, you'll build muscle. That single exercise can easily suck up 15 minutes of your session though, and the time investment is usually greater the longer you've been training. And typically people are interested in aesthetics in their upper body. You're not going to build your arms by doing a squat. So, again: it depends on your goals. If your idea of fitness is having strong legs, glutes, etc, then sure, you can target that and be successful in one hour. If you have bigger aspirations, the story is different.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there is a technique to certain compound (free weight) movements. A lot of people don't start their fitness journey that way (and some have good reasons for doing this). If you start using machines that are more targeted, then you will easily blow past the hour mark.

It really depends on your goals and how far along you are. I can't imagine one hour per week being productive enough, especially for building muscle (where?). Is your routine like 3 exercises? If you just started, then sure.

Jesus. I'm reading this thread through the regular website layout and these kinds of derailments make it more difficult.

and they shouldn't have to, really

I don't give to the homeless because I had a crap upbringing and I cling to my finances. My finances bring me a feeling of security. I don't know if that's selfishness. I wouldn't call it evil though.

What's the point of throwing around labels anyway?

lol he presents a counterexample with the solo careers of the Beatles and then quickly goes "but they weren't of the same caliber as the Beatles." Okay, so then there aren't exceptions to your initial statement because... you say so? Perfect.

Towards the end he clarifies that, in the context of music, it's the improvisation that becomes more difficult as you age, not necessarily that you can't be as/more creative.

>The point of democracy is not that it always makes correct or wise decisions. Rather, its main strength is in that it gives us processes to ensure the peaceful transfer of power.

Oh, you'll still find high profile people who will argue that the January 6th attack was a peaceful event, or maybe that it wasn't violent. Politics is filled with great talkers who distort reality. But also, it seems like there's a large group that isn't concerned with preserving the system. Part of Trump's appeal is that he's anti-establishment, or so they say.

I know the linked article isn't really making an explicit political point, but I'm still hung up over the mainstream dialogue. Why else are we talking about the peaceful transfer of power anyway? That conversation only picked up steam after the 2020 election.

This is another personal anecdote, but I had an interview earlier this year for a database related role. The job ad had a huge salary range and the interview had nothing to do with the role. I wasn't asked any behavioral or technical questions. The two people on the call just wanted to get to know me. We probably spent several minutes talking about sports. A few days later I got rejected. What the hell?

Yea this is a weird one. Some job applications actually require me to fill in reference contact information. I can't submit the application without that detail. Of course, I try to skirt it.

Is this normal?

Related discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41714672

Yesterday's discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41994640

I genuinely don't understand why job boards have to be so fragmented. The article mentions five different boards I've never even heard of.

It's an abuse of power to prioritize a high profile case in which there was (suspicion of) interference with the election process? what?

I don't understand how the "why now" conversation takes priority over the "why should it be allowed" conversation. Maybe you can answer the latter before the former?

It's so frustrating reading the comments around here. It's like the conversation is driven by people whose circumstances fall on the upper tail end. No concept of financial insecurity. No long-term financial commitments to worry about. Infinite flexibility. Like jeez, congrats. Now try imagining somebody else that's not you.

It's an interesting article. All sorts of behavior can trigger insecurity and fear. You might be well intentioned, but it comes down to how the other person interprets your presence. People can dislike you for being successful, being too open, talking about yourself too much, talking about yourself too little, etc. One person's confidence can be seen as cockiness or arrogance, which is unlikable.

I've had relationships/friendships where interactions would totally go outside my comfort zone. I don't reject or ghost those people of course. But jeez, what do you do in those situations? Sometimes there's a huge cultural, or value, mismatch. I'm definitely not the agreeable type. Are you going off script too much or am I too rigid?

Somebody in the blog's comments already said it: relationship building takes energy. Sometimes you don't have the energy. Sometimes you have the energy, but don't know how to channel it.

Well it seems like AI is being used to generate fake engagement and dialogue on social media platforms. Seems like a dangerous direction to go in.

Someone needs to fix hiring/the job application process.

I was involved in K-12 math education for a few years and there's absolutely a pressure to make things easy for kids. When certain parents see Johnny scored poorly on a test, guess what they do? They start a conversation with the teacher and administration. Johnny needs to pass, or maybe even succeed, and it's the education that has to change around him. It creates more work. Teaching already isn't a traditional 9-5. Grading homework can consume hours outside of normal working time. Meanwhile, I can count on one hand how many times I needed to put in overtime at my office job.

If the school has a tuition, then there's even more of a conflict of interest. I've had parents/admins imply that we might be losing a student due to poor grades.

I think this response is disproportionate. I mean, it really validates my previous comment about feeling like I'm walking on eggshells.

Good luck with the rest of your polite and skilled conversations where you accuse other people of being manipulative and crazy.