_fnhr

This is quality writing for a blog post. Bet it would be accepted for publication as a review article in a suitable scientific journal.

It also follows his own "fibonacci web design" style [1]

[1]: https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/fibonacciwebdesign.html

> If you don't mind me asking, do you suffer from any of the things he discusses in the book?

Yes, the book was recommended by my therapist. There were interesting and helpful parts to the book, in my case specifically the idea that it's hard to be anxious in a relaxed body, the yoga part, and the chapter about psyche being composed of different parts that protect one another and you can ask them to "step aside" were the most influential.

So I took useful things out of it, but I cannot say it is well written. In particular a lot of "meta" conversation would have been better left out. Like coming back to the DSM classification and ranting how it doesn't include childhood traumas even thou the author feels he demonstrated they should be a separate entity. And on research - I don't know much, but I know something about epigenetics. There was a chapter that touched upon epigenetics (about how stressors change the expression of our genes), and the papers were cherry-picked to agree with what the author was saying. I didn't like that and this made me doubt some of the cited literature in other chapters that I cannot judge on my own.

I second the Freedman, Pisani, Purves "statistics" recommendation.

This book explains the concepts without using mathematics, but even people with phDs in mathematics praise it as one of the best textbooks on statistics [1]

[1] https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/1666/18417

To play the devil's devil's advocate :)

Brave allows you to do whatever you want. You can see publisher ads without Brave ads. You can see Brave ads without publishers ads. You can see both. Or you can disable both.

Since individual users can achieve any configuration of ads they like, to me it seems that some people are only unhappy with this because they want to push their moral stances on everyone else. Like, for example, stating that the ability to block publisher ads while enabling Brave ads is immoral and shouldn't be allowed.

There are more lies in that article. This one for example is so often repeated but untrue:

> Rewards is their shitty program that will replace ads displayed on websites with their own.

Brave doesn't replace ads with their own. Brave ads are displayed as desktop pop-ups. They can also be easily disabled (which, surprise, the author doesn't mention because of his bias). And the idea behind Brave ads is to give you tokens which are then distributed to the content creators you engaged with. This is the default setting. Their idea is not to shovel you with ads or offer you "get rich with crypto" schemes. Idea is to block ads but still provide revenue to the content, based on how many users engage with that content.

When I see people saying "Brave replaces ads with their own" I have to wonder if they have tried using Brave themselves before writing these critique articles.

I don't have anything like this and I think it's a bad idea to be keeping a wiki like that. The premise here is to accumulate knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself. In my experience this isn't productive, takes time, and is not going anywhere. There is a reason you forget things you read about - you don't really need them and your brain does you a favour by forgetting.

For me - a better alternative is to only seek and store knowledge about things you are currently working on, and organise it by project. And if you read something that is actionable - do it and forget about it. Ideas are also fine, but if you have more than 3 then it can be a sign of procrastination.