holowire

Right—and in the loose model that I use to make sense of it, crypto/web3/blockchain/whatever becomes the setting. You actually don't need to understand a whole lot about any of that stuff to get involved.

So to generalize:

Introducing a limited supply to the right early adopters creates perceived exclusivity and value.

Perceived exclusivity and value draws attention.

Attention increases engagement creates FOMO.

FOMO attracts audience and grows community.

Community stabilizes value, and with enough momentum spins off new projects where the cycle starts over again and the system expands. This is often where outsiders and newcomers begin to enter.

Plug that flywheel into crypto where it not only facilitates effortless transactability, but the barriers to entry drop to the point where access is determined by who can get there first and the price of entry.

This is a huge factor in the explosive and viral growth that many NFT projects have seen.

Agreed. And digging down to the social layer beneath it all, the network effects created by the community that coalesces around these projects is what drives everything.

Yes, and this is probably the more important half of it.

While I agree that too much or habitual over-stimulus can have a profound negative effect on productivity, without a diverse and varied body of experience, the other half of the process—convergent thinking—has nothing to converge from.

So while I don't think the article is inaccurate, it only explores half of the picture. _Excessive_ consumption does however imply an imbalance, but the article doesn't go much further than that.

> Again the fashion for extreme flatness, with square icons and buttons that disappear into the background are shown to be counter productive and user hostile.

Any sources for this? I tend to share this sentiment, but have never really read too deeply into it.

> They might "look nice" to some lead designer, but they don't work as well.

To further this, I think it is important to acknowledge too that these design decisions are not made exclusively because they "look nice." There is value in "sameness" when you are competing with other products/brands/sites that have already established a certain style, convention or pattern. After all, we learn and orient ourselves by subconsciously comparing new experiences with ones we've already had. So when you experience similar patterns in a new interface, it drastically decreases the cognitive load in learning how to use it. To your point though, there is a fine line in how effectively you can push simplicity, and there are many subtle visual variables beyond the reductionist square button that could help to improve legibility of elements as distinct components that are largely ignored in current trends.

It's interesting to consider how commodified music streaming has become. I'd be interested to see how many people actually have any kind of loyalty to one platform over the other, or if their choice is more reflective of which one fulfills one or two preferential details better in this relative moment.

Thinking about my personal choice, I choose Spotify over apple music because I like the library interface better. I also used Apple Music exclusively from launch until two years ago because I previously had a large local library of my own through iTunes. Both are great services, but once I transitioned into a fully streamed library, Spotfiy became more appealing to me for smaller and smaller reasons. My impression is that with the ubiquity of streaming and general consistency of quality, preference largely becomes a product of what platform is the most readily available.

While I am fairly staunch in my preference for Spotify at the moment, but I am not sympathetic to their position against Apple's terms. I fully acknowledge that not all apps that operate in Apple's ecosystem are treated totally equally, but remember, equality and fairness are not the same thing. It is their ecosystem after all and it is in their best interest to be selective in how they maintain it. So while it Spotify may not be treated equally, it is my opinion that they are treated fairly within Apple's walled garden.

Oh yes—I should have mentioned the glossary. Thanks for calling that out—it is absolutely necessary in making it an enjoyable read. Once you get a grasp on it though, it's pretty easy to infer meaning of new words as you go.

I actually just picked up 'The Wake' a couple of weeks ago. There is definitely a learning curve to Kingsnorth's "shadow tongue," but once you get the hang of it, it is very immersive and rewarding to read. It really gives you a sense of foreign place and time, as a story set in 1066 should. What surprised me is how effective it is at establishing a perspective from which you can really feel the relationship that these characters have with the world around them. I picked it up because the premise sounded interesting, and was totally blown away with how fun it is to read—I would definitely recommend checking it out.

I am currently reading Why We Sleep as well, and Matthew Walker's research on the topic is really interesting to consider within the larger constellation of approaches to Alzheimer's—particularly in context of the dietary/metabolic angle.

The neural maintenance that occurs during sleep, the body's circadian mechanisms and quality of diet all seem to be highly complementary and ultimately point towards a more holistic and fundamental understanding of the disease (or brain physiology in general). It's been demonstrated pretty comprehensively that quality of diet and timing of eating have a profound effect on how well the body functions as a whole, so the sleep component seems to be an important thread in tying all of these approaches together.

When I retired my social media accounts a couple of years ago (facebook, instagram, twitter) I remember a distinct feeling of triumph that felt worthy of sharing. Like I finally opened my eyes to see them for what they really are... but in the end it was nothing more than that and I quickly occupied my attention elsewhere with other activities.

Now this is only my narrow perspective on it, but I can very easily picture a scenario where for a lot of people, some level of inflated self-importance (granted by the very platform they are quitting) only heightens the perception of magnitude with them actually leaving it. So I can see where treating self-imposed exile becomes an act of heroism of sorts.

But I wholly agree with you, and I have a hard time sympathizing. All that is required is a little effort in giving yourself some distance from it and your free.

> I wouldn't give much stock in what Taleb writes about anything except options trading.

Why do you say that? I’m broadly familiar with Taleb’s writing, but have yet to fully read any of his books. So I’m curious of your perspective here and what is informing that sentiment.

> Here’s a simple fix to use all the extra space. To tell the browser to expand into the display cutout (notched) area, set the viewport-fit property to cover like so...

This honestly looks worse than having white margins in my opinion. While the white margins aren't ideal, they are still a better visual solution than fully extending the page to the left and right. Content should be given enough space as to not visually interact with the rounded corners, otherwise it reflects poorly on the site designer, as if they didn't account for it. So, forcing the page within the confines of the non-rounded area is a better global solution that offers better visual consistency. That said, I think either a blacking out the margin would be more visually appealing and not draw as much attention to the actual notch area, but forcing margins by default is the right call.

I don't disagree, and it's not facebook's responsibility to teach people how to identify manipulative content, but that viewpoint is too narrow. People blindly trust facebook because it is positioned as a safe place on the internet. Users let their guard down and don't think about what they are seeing critically enough to not let themselves be manipulated. And that's exactly what facebook wants from an advertising revenue perspective. It is in their gross negligence of responsibility in keeping user data safe and out of the hands of bad actors that their complicity lies. If facebook wants to assume ownership over our data, then they are responsible for it, and by extension what others do with it.

They absolutely did. They normalized negligent, opaque and irresponsible recording/manipulation of data under the hand-wavy intent of "oh, we're just making it easier for you to interact with your friends and family." Little regard for any peripheral consequences. There have yet been any real consequences for that. At the scale this whole situation has grown to, they absolutely are getting too easy. On the surface this action by FB is pointed at the right direction, it is not enough.

I'm with you on the analysis.

> There is likely next to nothing they can actually do to stop coordinated exploitation by highly skilled and intelligent state actors.

If they weren't so spineless, the solution is simple, at least in the time leading up to elections. Shut it down. Turn off ads. Disable non-profile pages. Allowing blatant manipulation of the platform deserves a blunt solution. Maybe let people think for themselves for once? Facebook is a convenience, not a necessity.

Going on two years of 16/8 IF myself, but I'd say that it absolutely was life-changing for me.

I initially lost about 45 lbs (217 – 172) in about 10 months, but have since leveled out between 170-175. Beyond the weight loss, I noticed marked improvements in general energy levels, sleep quality, and chronic issues such as heartburn. More importantly though, I think the biggest adjustment that IF enabled me to make was transitioning into _wanting_ to eat healthy/whole foods and cut out foods with processed carbs and added sugar.

But I totally agree, there definitely is a psychological aspect of it, whether the improvements are quantifiable or not. Maybe the results are placebo, maybe it's confirmation bias, but I definitely think that IF allowed me to reframe the way I approach my diet, and eat in a way that is more attuned to being healthy.

All systems of the body follow a circadian rhythm. Following the body’s circadian rhythm and adhering to a time-restricted eating pattern (i.e. intermittent fasting) is even more important than explicitly only restricting calories. Secondly, avoiding processed carbs and sugars is more important than explicitly only restricting calories. Combined, those two principles directly impact your insulin sensitivity, which is very influential in telling your body how to process the calories you eat, when to feel hungry/full, and to what degree.

Of course, by following a time-restricted eating pattern, you naturally consume less calories, but in general, calories are largely irrelevant when you are adhering to a consistent circadian eating cycle and eating clean, whole foods. Healthy insulin resistance directly negates fat/weight gain by telling your body to simply dispose of the excess energy rather than storing it as fat. Calories-wise, the body only uses what it needs and gets rid of the rest. To keep insulin resistance in a healthy range though, you obviously need to not consume things that will spike it and reverse the feedback loop. Following the body’s natural circadian rhythm contributes to keeping it in a healthy range as well, and it is significantly easier to adhere to than restricting calories only.

For the curious, here are a few resources that I have found super helpful in learning to better control my diet and health.

The Obesity Code by Jason Fung, MD http://a.co/7MHTlmU

Found My Fitness Podcast with Dr. Rhonda Patrick https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/foundmyfitness/id8181983...