hessp

Just ask it to. If you want, you can also give it pointers to how to read .claude jsonl/metadata so it keeps track of usage and self-adjusts. It's not perfect, but it's pretty dang good if you just say 'This project is allotted X% of my 5h limit'.

My circle of friends shrunk some during the pandemic and after the vaccines came out I put a lot of effort into building it up (larger than before). Some data in case helpful:

Friends made over 1 year, 3 months:

Meetup - 1 friend. Had a poor time-to-friend ratio for what I put in, but that's an n=1 and I mostly frequented just one meetup, although I tried like 3. Negative experience overall (for me, ymmv). Friend is great.

Local discord group around a hobby of interest - 2 friends. Many friendly acquaintances. Had to find the right group as a few I tried didn't feel like as-good fits. Positive experience, the friend making process was enjoyable and the friends are great.

Meeting at an intro class for another hobby (a semi social one - need at least one partner) - 2 friends. We were all new at the intro class and it was hard to find people, so we swapped numbers. Got to know each other through the hobby then became friends. Probably would be difficult to replicate intentionally.

Friends of Friends - 1 large group. 5 that I'd call friends and several more that I'd call group-friends or friendly acquaintances.

Friends of Friends are exponential. There's an excellent time to friend ratio, and the people you meet come pre-vetted. But note that some friends may be hesitant to make inter-friend connections even after they know you well, depending on how closed-off their other groups are. It's, of course, also not generally accessible until you have enough of a circle that like/trust you enough that you're getting invites to their other group things.

Would love to hear your take on this study which recently came out and gained some popularity here on HN: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602...

Speaking solely as a layman, that study seems like it might be extremely relevant to the discussion here. But at the same time I don't have the background necessary to critique or dissect it.

HN Post on the study: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366006

> Buy notebook with keyboard without Esc key.

Won't help. True addicts know of C-[.

- How to understand people and present ideas and opinions to them in a manner that they will respond to positively. Or judge how they will respond to an idea and make an informed decision about whether to present it based on your judgement of both the person and situation.

- Understanding that emotions drive people often much more than logic. And that many people already know this and temper their communication based on the emotions it will provoke. And that participants in a conversation can know this about others and infer more than what is said by them.

The first time I was able to read into a conversation between a few others and see that their (apparently irrational) discussion was really a different form of communication built on top of theory of mind was mindblowing for me.

- The corollary of the above is learning how to use a sense of people / theory of mind to more effectively disagree. Either focusing on not creating a barrier when disagreeing. Or focusing on effectively convincing the other party based on pathos in addition to logos.

I found the following most helpful while learning this:

1. Podcast: Career Tools / Manager Tools.

2. Book: "Secrets to Winning at Office Politics: How to Achieve Your Goals and Increase Your Influence at Work" - Note, she quickly redefines 'winning' as 'benefiting both yourself and the organization'. I thought it sounded slimy at first before I read that.

It's a thought. Or QA Automation.