rdm42116
"Just become a master at that one thing, and then become a master at another, and viola! Idea sex. Then you'll really be rich! lol!"
Gee, if only I had married Elon Musk.
It's just far more interesting and satisfying. Telling someone to walk on a treadmill to help their focus is like telling them to watch paint dry. But team sports are dynamic, which I feel suits people such as myself, who have a hard time staying focused on one thing.
Fear mongering about drugs has led us not to use them for fears of addictions. Alcohol is legal and yet we discourage the use of drugs that may help people medically.
Many people have seen drastic improvements in their lives because of ADHD medication. The potential risks are well worth the reward for people with truly disruptive ADHD.
What does is playing a sport. Playing pick up soccer gives me a far better workout than lifting heavy objects and grinding on a treadmill, even at high intensity levels.
It's easy to say do these exercises, but to people who have minds that jump around a lot, mundane, boring exercises are not enticing.
Personally have it, and my "creativity" in my mind is off the charts. When I occasionally have hyperfocus I can make something from it, but I have the similar issues to you in that I lose focus or am unable to organize myself.
I think the mental illness side of things is very grey. Clearly you have a very severe case, but I don't consider my personal variant severe enough to label as an extremely debilitating mental illness,but I benefit greatly from treatment. I can still function-I get most of what I need to done, but I struggle a lot with it. But at the same time, I understand the problem of not always labeling it as such, because then people dismiss it in its more severe forms.
We just assume technology will improve exponentially based on an extremely small sample size. Has it never occurred to us that the technology curve may horizontally asymptotic as opposed to exponential?
The ICE was an amazing piece of technology that grew rapidly, from cars to military warplanes, to our lawnmowers. Yet we can not make them much more efficient or powerful without significantly increasing resources and cost. If you judged the potential of the ICE on the growth it had then, we'd be living in an efficiency utopia now.
That's fantastic you have a safety net with your parents, with amazing credit, that can borrow at good rates, at any time.
What about the people paying double digit interest rates to get a crappy used car? People who can't borrow money because of no credit, without their parents to cover extreme interest rates?
It's great that some people have the luxury to somehow not have an emergency fund, but a huge portion of the population is unable to do that. The last thing they care about is return on investment in savings-they need money to get food next week.
Yes, being judgmental without knowing the whole story isn't a good thing, but that misses the point: people are choosing to spend instead of save-and many times it's on luxuries. He's not just talking about the poor.
It is a fact that an iPhone is a luxury. There are plenty of much cheaper phones that function exactly the same as an iPhone. But through excessive marketing and a digitized world, people are convinced they NEED an iPhone. They're convinced they NEED a $1500 Macbook Pro for school in liberal arts.
It's not good to make judgments on the poor, but this is 69% of Americans, not just the poor (impoverished are closer to 15%), and that's the scary part. Most but the top 30% are spending above their means, and getting credit to do it, in an economy that's probably not going to grow like it did in the 20th century.
Yes, there is always something better that only the wealthy may afford-but that doesn't mean the baseline level of care for most people can't be improved. People don't expect the world's best surgeon to work on them.
And either way-the care for most Americans isn't necessarily better than Canadian or Swedish care, many rankings are significantly worse while costing the most.
I know one thing-if I had health care covered, I'd be more willing to start a business or take a break from work. That would make me happier.
Almost every major manufacturing industry is now automated, we don't have to go to the future to see the effects of automation.
These assembly line workers had to have gone somewhere, because if they haven't, we'd be experiencing extreme unemployment now-let alone the future.
It's amazing how workers, who got fired by the hundreds of thousands, voluntarily gave up pensions only to lose their jobs, dealt with numerous health issues and cancers working in horrible conditions, even in modern times, and still get blamed.
I think more than anything I just want freedom. I don't want to be locked into 8-5. Some days I want to work late and do stuff during the day (yardwork, appointments). I just want flexibility.
Clear agendas don't solve the problem of a bad agenda.
Meetings can be valuable but not nearly as valuable as peer to peer communication in the office. Meetings are almost always a waste of time where I work.
Honestly, he's very candid, and he says things people don't want to hear. Sometimes he says things that are just wrong and inconsiderate, but other times he says things that are simply inconvenient truths.
For example, he brings up the Epipen situation in a different light: He says $300 ($600 for 2) is significantly cheaper than the alternative (a trip to the ER, which can be thousands of dollars). He goes on to say it's a relative bargain, and that insurance companies should be more than willing to pay for Epipens because of the potential cost savings. To him the problem isn't Mylan (which has become the target of everyone's ire) but the insurance companies or medicaid.
Whether that's true or not it's a different perspective, and as a society we need to hear things that the masses don't necessarily agree with. The US system of healthcare is highly flawed, it's not a good idea to just make a boogeyman who will hide the real issues.
It's interesting that you make a blanket statement, but call another blanket statement "silly." Perhaps there are more people than we think that can come in, get to work, and deliver quality. It's interesting that this suddenly doesn't become an issue when something needs done off hours with a short deadline-then they CAN come in and work right away, right?
Yes, it's pretty well established that to move up hours must be put in. The reason this topic comes up time and time again is because no one asks the question why nor do they prove that these hours translate to better work or more productivity. I've seen insane hours in third party consultants. They mess up. A lot.