I ask that question, not because I haven’t been screwed by the banking system, but because everyone I see in the crypto space is out to screw people even harder.
Your comment presupposes that crypto solves the problem of perverse incentives. Really, it just worsens them.
As for (1), one of my decks has ~10,000 mature cards currently gives me ~3-5 reviews per day.
If you plan on sustaining dozens of new cards per day indefinitely, you’ll bury yourself in reviews, but spaced repetition does ensure that if your recall rate is high, review count degrades over time, and eventually becomes negligible. I go through periods of daily new cards when I’m focused on learning something, and periods of review and consolidation. If my daily reviews get over 200, it’s time to let the new cards rest for a while.
I’m in Norway, and I tried the first search “rema 1000” without getting any spam results on the first two pages…
That doesn’t entirely eliminate the other possibilities though, google search isn’t deterministic, and the domain could have been reported since the article went up.
I hope it does age poorly. I tried to make it clear that I’m a prolific user of decentralised applications, and that I really want them to succeed. I just pointed out my feelings on why they usually don’t, in the hope we can do something about it.
> I just pointed out my feelings on why they usually don’t
I think this part of the article, instead of just being the last four paragraphs, should have been almost all of it. As it is, you make some very strong claims with no supporting argument whatsoever:
"the solution has to be political"
"The current system of profit motives, one might call it a market, was designed to optimise the process of extracting, refining, and transforming physical resources."
"some like to idealise the aforementioned market as a free and unregulated system, the truth is that it optimises rather poorly under those circumstances, and needs heavy regulation to align profit motives in the direction of efficient processing and distribution of resources."
And this in a footnote:
"I’m not convinced we should [keep these profit motives at all]"
... Does it? The author made it pretty clear throughout the article that (in their opinion; see the "Blockchain" section) the walled-gardening comes from having to trap in your users in order to make some money from your service. The conclusion that you need to change the (larger picture) motivations for the existence of these services in order not to fall into this behaviour seems logical to me. (And, of course, if you want to change social organisation/motivation, the solution has to be political.)
Got to love the people that think they understand Bitcoin when their arguments and reasoning show exactly the opposite. I suggest you get of your high horse and actually do some research. You just come across as the typical entitled westerner
What is unacceptable to me is why this question is never asked of Fathers. I don’t think anyone would blink at hearing that a dad only sees his kids on weekends, but is it not just as harmful?
Ultimately though, I fail to understand why anyone without the proper time to devote to a child would chose to have one.
> But what people without kids may not realize is the extent to which people with kids want their time to be consumed by them. And, on the whole, I’d guess women more so than men.
This is a straight-up sexist assumption about the intrinsic interests of fathers in parenting.
> improving the situation of women in the workplace
This line reads harshly on women's ability to make critical career decisions.
Real advice is from your grandmother: make ye bed and lay in it.
If a person wants children, that's a conscious choice with happiness, sacrifice and burdens garuanteed. There is no fairy dust, wanna-have-it-all solution. I feel like people of all cultures and ages understood this and it's our generation that's perplexed at everything like chimps let loose in a city.
I think you may have misinterpreted the article? It does not discuss how much a mother should see her kids. Only that the amount she wants to see her kids may differ.
AFAICT when she says "It seemed horrible", she means "I would not like to be in your shoes", and NOT "you are not devoting the proper time and that is harmful".
I experienced a super busy dad for some long stretches and it never felt harmful personally. Could have been mom alternatively. Probably could not have been both at the same time without feeling some consequence.
You have a limited window to have children who likely will outlive you / be around your entire life. Work / time constraints while intense are temporary.
I’d wager that most people would agree that any dad that is seeing his children only on weekends is failing as a father. Obviously there’s some extreme exceptions but by and large I can’t imagine anyone advocating for him.
The risk of genetic defects increase with age[1]. You are right though, you can definitely have healthy children in your 30's, though late 40s looks a little scary.
The pattern I have seen is enjoying your 20s, then deciding to have a family, but not having a suitable partner, which leads to undesirable outcomes (desperate decisions, never finding a partner, disappointment of not engine up with kids, difficulty conceiving). This goes for men and women.
Another pattern is seeing people in their thirties finding it harder to adjust to the necessary changes because they have got accustomed to a lifestyle.
I've seen him talk about his tendency toward depression and I've seen him talk about his recent addiction, illness, and ongoing recuperation.
I've watched a lot of his videos and read his books. I never saw him mock mental disease or say that addiction was for the weak (unless to the extent that all humanity is weak). That just doesn't sound like the type of thing Peterson would say. I have a hard time believing you.
Don't know you're grayed out. Humans are genetically extremely similar, appearances not-withstanding. Nurture is what creates valuable and functional humans. Societal factors that reduce parents ability to nurture their children are bad regardless of the parents gender.
Monogamy can also be considered a source of risk depending on circumstances.
People who want to have lots of sex, will still feel those desires in a monogamous relationship. Monogamy might make them less likely to act on those feelings, but it will make them less likely to test regularly, and stop them from being open with their partners about risks, and prevents clear communication about establishing safe sex practices.
If my partner has sex with someone else, I want them to feel safe enough to tell me. That way I can make decisions such as using protection with them that I might not otherwise, or getting tested myself, which I would not be able to otherwise.
The comment I replied to was asking about comparing those kinds of editor to "basic editors (e.g., gedit) and reaching for grep/sed/etc when I need something fancy." You certainly can't reasonably do most of those things with that toolset.
> The D3 produced in your body because of sun exposure doesn't have to go through the liver.
Most people don’t have access to that much sunlight, whether it’s because they have to spend most of the day working indoors, or, like me, they live in a polar region where you literally can’t get sun most of the year.
While it may be better for your liver not to have more to process, I highly doubt taking vitamin supplements is worse than living with a deficiency.
Also, in polar cultures, eating large amounts of vitamin D rich foods is exactly what people have been doing for thousands of years, without it causing health problems. And I can tell you from experience, that failing to get that vitamin D WILL cause health problems.
Your comment presupposes that crypto solves the problem of perverse incentives. Really, it just worsens them.