eplanit

I had a very wealthy 73 year-old client once -- one of the most interesting of all. He had built up a collection of businesses around the world, and at 73 was (and is still) flying around the world to make deals. He is like a savant in that if he is awake, then he's busy working. It was very common to send him an e-mail at 10 or 11pm, to which he would immediately reply, and then wake up the next morning at 7am to find he'd already sent a new e-mail a few minutes earlier.

I noticed that nothing stressed him -- he would push people and get angry and annoyed, but it was all externalized and not internalized. He's worth billions, but never does _anything_ that normal people would consider fun. For him, the work is his fun. I have great respect for the work and the success, but it's hollow in context of it all.

Maybe it's the result of telling 2+ generations of boys that "males", especially "white males" (predominant in Canada) are the root of all problems in society and the world, coupled with ever-present emphasis and promotion of girls (most recently manifested in Trudeau's absurd references to "she-cession" and "she-covery").

I do. I respect the guy, but this seems like a "me too" (the traditional meaning, as in someone trying to assert "Hey, I'm a player, too"). It's a worthy cause, but I think his major contribution may be his celebrity cache.

Musk has a name re: Space based on accomplishments, hands down. Branson's move extends the Virgin enterprises, and Bezos has a similar business plan and track record as Branson. But now comes Woz, older and much later to the game, and with no background of experience.

His name, face, and personality will bring in investors, though, I'm sure.

Race is distinct from Nationality. "Latino" is not a synonym for citizens of Latin American countries, but the name of a racial group which originated from that region of the world.

It gets confusing with countries like China, Japan, and India, which are more racially homogeneous, and where the country name is the same as the (common) name of the predominate racial groups.

Much of what you say about hormones has been considered scientific fact for a long time -- but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the facts have been banished by political correctness.

Plus, Facebook is indeed a harmful product for society at large (like cigarettes), and often has bigger negative impacts on younger users (again like cigarettes).

The combination of these is obviously bad...but Facebook knowing it and hiding the fact is very much (again) like what tobacco companies did.

No, you're spot on. That's been my conclusion of the past few years, that Facebook, Twitter et al. are the tobacco companies of our time. They act very much the same as the tobacco companies did: misleading their 'customers', and corrupting the politicians who would otherwise regulate them.

Well put. My only social media connection was via Twitter, which I quit a month ago. This states the motivation, and the resulting benefit, succinctly.

"The question about human overpopulation is not whether there can be overpopulation, but whether the often popular claim that the earth can not sustain the current or the projected future human population is true"

So only human overpopulation is impossible, you're saying. I think you're wrong on that. We're special relative to other species -- but not that special, and not immune to it.

"In the grand scheme of things, we - humanity - know mostly how to create a sustainable technological system that can support 10B population. Whether our politics will allow us to get to such a system is a entirely different problem, and THAT might be our undoing, but I'd argue that's not really an overpopulation problem."

Is the goal to pack as many humans onto this planet as is possible?? That certainly isn't my goal, at all. With our technology, we don't need vast numbers with which to build pyramids or plant fields.

You make it sound like the job situation in the Netherlands is desperate. From what I can tell by searching, unemployment is only about 3%. Where's the desperation in that?

Uber drivers I've talked to didn't join because they were desperate -- they joined to have more freedom and control.

Uber drivers I've asked have, without exception, said that they oppose these moves to make them employees. I ask almost every one whose car I get in.

The whole appeal for the drivers was "employment-like" opportunities with more freedom for themselves. This takes that away. If they wanted regular jobs they would have sought that.

Who says anything about crippling or destroying anything?

One approach is to split up the company in to separate entities. Search, YouTube, advertising, technology products and OSs, etc...

To suggest that overpopulation is controversial is itself absurd, as it is fundamental to the science of biology[1]. That a species can reach numbers where their environment and habitat is depleted or otherwise unlivable is fact, not controversy.

"Population Control" is certainly controversial, though, as it should be. And, though controversial, it should be considered seriously. Many environmentalists lose their credibility by speaking of "sustainability" on the one hand, but then disputing overpopulation on the other. We need to impact the earth much less, and keeping our numbers down is a very effective way of doing so. That, plus using energy and resources more cleanly and efficiently.

[1] https://biologydictionary.net/overpopulation/

"When an academic wins a Nobel prize, they have achieved a pinnacle of expertise. At which point they often start to wax philosophic, and writing op-eds. They seem to be making a bid to become an elite. Because we all respect and want to associate with elites far more than with experts. Elites far less often lust after becoming experts, because we are often willing to treat elites as if they are experts. For example, when a journalist writes a popular book on science, they are often willing to field science questions when they give a talk on their book. And the rest of us are far more interested in hearing them talk on the subject than the scientists they write about."

Not one single sentence of that paragraph is true.

When an academic wins a Nobel prize, they have achieved a pinnacle of expertise. No, they've achieved celebrity status (perhaps well-earned by being a top expert). There are those who are experts, but who do not get Nobel prizes. It's not a perfect prize.

They seem to be making a bid to become an elite. They don't get the prize because the ask for it or buy it, and the celebrity status comes with it automatically. Some recipients capitalize on it, for sure. I think "the elites" bring them into their circles on their own.

Because we all respect and want to associate with elites far more than with experts. No, we all don't.

For example, when a journalist writes a popular book on science...the rest of us are far more interested in hearing them talk on the subject than the scientists they write about. I think many (maybe not enough, for sure) don't see 'journalists' as scientific experts. For your Sanjay Guptas it may be true, but he's not a true journalist .

To be fair, that's the same CDC that only 5 months ago was saying getting vaccinated meant "getting back to normal" -- no masks, distancing rules, etc. Their reputation as being authoritative on this topic is understandably tarnished.

A healthcare professional who may already have antibodies from prior infection, and who therefore does not need a vaccine, perhaps.

Technically, Soylent Green was made of people (the plot of the movie). The premise of it though was Soylent (Blue, Yellow,...) foods were (supposed to have been) made from vegetable and seaweed protein -- which is not so much science fiction anymore w.r.t. Beyond Meat and other such products.

As a US citizen, I really wish I lived in a country with effective (i.e. actually used/enforced) antitrust laws, that would see the dominance in browsers (chrome and android), combined with dominance in search -- which promotes its ads (another industry it dominates), the alteration of how the web is experienced to favor itself (hiding site identity the browser and in search results, combined with showing scraped content instead of directing traffic to actual site), combined with ... as being monopolistic and anti-competitive practices. It's beyond ridiculous anymore.

It'll take a couple of generations. Starting raising your kids on only Soylent Green type modern foods, and no meats; then, they'll grow up to find real meat disgusting.

The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation of the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage".

I had a new A/C installed in my house a few years ago. The technician asked for the wifi password so that the A/C could connect. He was very puzzled when I laughed and told him no, the A/C has no need for the Internet. He went on and on about controlling the thermostat from an app...and how the date/time would always be in sync.

At first I got very concerned that it was required, and was preparing for a very unpleasant conversation about how they would have to replace it with a different model. Fortunately, it was an option...that year.

Yes, but then there are examples like this guy:

https://www.businessinsider.com/woodworker-drivable-wooden-b...

...who I hope gets as much free time as is possible.

"I'm very worried that any government action is going to end up being something that only FB, Google, etc can do anything about."

Worse is the likely objective/outcome: big tech and gov't. joining forces.

"I'm sure there are more productive or fulfilling things for people to be doing..."

I love the irony that they work in "Fufillment Centers".

The article says that the LAPD is also using "Media Sonar" (https://mediasonar.com/) to provide basically Minority Report style "pre-crime" data. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that LA is most influenced by one of its own movies.

There's a difference between "country founded by", and "land occupied by". Yes, the aboriginals, like native tribes all over the world, were displaced by modernity. One can debate the good vs. bad of it all, but the country of Australia was founded as a penal colony (after displacing the aboriginals).

Just dried herb/flower. Yeah, concentrates would be hard for me to trust, too.