> So if you want to truly do something that no one has done before, do something obscure, do something time-consuming, do something difficult, and do something that has unknowns you’ll only resolve once you complete the first bits.
This is an excellent checklist for doing something novel, but it doesn't provide any guidance towards doing something valuable that's original.
I don't think anyone has tried to build an ocean-going floating platform for raising wolverines for the pet trade, and that certainly checks everything on the checklist. Likewise composing a seven-part symphonic cycle written for bagpipe, slide whistle, and djembe with aleatoric and audience-participation components. Or inventing a way to knit edible garments out of extremely gluten-rich pasta. Training ravens to play Roblox games.
But are those worthwhile projects? I suppose there's only one way to find out.
"Table 1 documents that treated counties (those with >90% AT&T 3G coverage) are substantially more urban, White, Republican-leaning, and affluent than control counties. To address this imbalance, we apply the entropy-balancing reweighting of Hainmueller (2012), which solves for the entropy-minimizing set of control-county weights that equalize the treated and reweighted-control means of a specified set of covariates."
I took running fairly seriously for six or seven years. I never really enjoyed it, but I ran religiously every week. I went from barely being able to run 1/6 of a mile without walking, to being able to finish a 5k. I ran a couple of local fun runs. I was never particularly good at it, but it was a real part of my life.
Two years ago, I slipped in a puddle on my bike and wrecked my ankle. There were many complications. Four surgeries later and I now have two pieces of titantium and a little slip of ultra-high molecular weight polyethelene (very strong plastic) where my ankle joint used to be.
I can never run again. Technically, at some point when I'm recovered enough from my last surgery, it should be possible. My surgeon said, "if you need to catch a flight or dodge traffic, sure". But I can't ever go out and run miles. It will just wear out the implant too quickly. The plastic can literally crack.
When I was recovering from surgery #3, my physical therapist told me to start walking regularly and keep track of distance. The first time I did, I opened Strava. All of my old runs popped up. I realized with a shock that I could scroll down and see not just the longest run I ever did, but the longest I ever will do.
I have dreams sometimes where I'm running, gliding across the ground effortlessly and painlessly. Usually, at some point I remember, "wait, you're not able to run anymore, you must be dreaming", and that tends to wake me up.
When I drive around the city, sometimes I pass places that used to be on my regular running routes. I remember what it felt like in my body to pound my way down that sidewalk, over that bridge. At first, these moments felt like a stab in my heart. Like a little part of my soul was being ripped out. Over time, that sharp stab faded to an ache, and then something more bittersweet. I lament that running is no longer part of my future, but I am at least grateful that I did run for a while. That chapter of my life is in the past, but at least I wrote the chapter.
For a long while, I was afraid I had lost much more than just running. But it seems like maybe the chronic pain is better and I will at least be able to walk and hike and dance without debilitating pain. But the running is over.
Losing a capability like this feels sort of like a fraction of death. Like a slice of my personhood has been amputated. It's made me realize that for most of us, the final chapters of our story aren't going full bore until the last page. Instead, aging means incrementally giving up more and more ability to do things, and accepting that more and more of our story is written and less and less is left to write.
It's still a struggle to accept that with any level of grace. I get where the author is coming from.
I have arthritis in my right ankle now and walking more than a mile leads to swelling, pain, and random sharp pinching during some strides. Running sets it off sooner than that. The ankle always is visibly swollen, it's obvious there's something wrong, and after more acute symptoms developed about eight months ago after my first soccer action in about a year I finally got it checked out and diagnosed two weeks ago. I'm lucky in that I can still cycle for an hour or two on fairly hilly roads in my North Carolina town, and I've been enjoying riding in the Phoenix desert a few times while visiting family this past week. I can still do some weight-bearing exercises too.
My biggest regret though is that I may never manage to play more than a few minutes of soccer at a time again. I got back to Latin America in early adolescence having missed some crucial soccer years. I was soon a couple of years younger than everyone else in my grade, and P.E. classes were not very fun, it was hard to compete and I rarely got to participate in real action on the soccer or rugby field. In my late teens I started to actually develop some soccer sense and got a bit better. But student/teacher political strikes during the dying years of a dictatorship and upcoming return of my family to the USA brought me to the USA for studies, and I didn't play much in college.
After a few years in SF Bay Area I started playing pickup soccer and eventually got to play quite well , especially during a particular two year stretch. Then marriage, busy jobs, having a kid meant I laid off the regular soccer for a while.
And now, with a bit more extra time I could maybe spend playing I no longer can. I've never been on a team, never been a specialist at a position, never trained regularly. The doctor said maybe with physical therapy and pain killers I could do it. I'll work toward that.
One of my complications was severe osteoarthritis.
The injury basically tried to twist my foot off, a "tri-malleolar fracture with dislocation". Even after doctors reduced the dislocation and used plates to put the broken bones back together, the cartilage suffered too much damage and just withered away to nothing.
Arthritis is a miserable, debilitating disease. My understanding is that usually once the cartilage reaches a certain level of loss, there is a positive feedback loop where the remaining cartilage is under too much pressure to regenerate and it continues to degrade. I hope yours gets better or at least maintains.
In my case, replacement or fusion were the only options and I went with replacement (since fusion tends to lead to more arthritis elsewhere in the foot). Replacement looks like it will give me back almost all of the activities I used to be able to do, including most sports, except running.
With respect, the author said his doctor told him not to. I am certain that the author and their medical professional know a hell of a lot more about what's a good idea for his body than you or I do.
When you are young and healthy, it feels like your body has no real hard limits, and doesn't define the boundary of what is and what isn't possible. But at some point, through age or misfortune, you will learn that, no, sometimes your body tells you "no" and you must listen.
I don't think you understood the point. If it really is your "dream" you adapt, as someone else pointed out, there's people without knees who snowboard.... there's a bunch of things you can do. But quite clearly, he hadn't even started on that journey, he didn't even know if he would have enjoyed it. it was a fantasy. Trust me, I get it, I have bad knees, but during my 40s my fantasy was to do parkour, and I did, I just adapted and got pretty good at it, now in my 50s, I don't do parkour anymore, but have a bunch of other problems and I still work out how to do the things I want.
There is a difference between coming up with some way to adapt your dreams to the limits of your body versus what your initial comment which was simply "That guy could go snowboarding, he just thinks the warning he got creates a risk that isn't worth it."
I think people are entitled to decide the contours and priorities of their own dreams. If snowboarding was the author's main goal in life and "snowboarding" for him was a loosely-defined enough dream to still feel satisfied by whatever accommodations his knees forced upon him, then, yes, he could probably still reach it. But not all dreams are created equal and we don't have infinite agency. We have to pick our battles and the author may feel that while this is a dream, it's not an important enough one to go through all of the risks or other accommodations needed to get there.
Or perhaps his dream is to snowboard in a certain way, and have a certain kind of experience that simply won't work with his knees the way they are. I saw a video once of a guy carrying his brother who had cerebral palsy through a race. It had always been the brother's dream to race and since his disability prevented it, that was how they accomplished it. I am absolutely thrilled that both brothers were able to have an experience that feels so meaningful to them.
But, for me, if my dream were to run a race, being carried wouldn't feel like accomplishing that dream. Maybe another dream, equally worthwhile. But if it's not my feet pounding the pavement, that's not my dream. Perhaps the author's dream is similarly inflexible.
Either way, after someone writes an article about learning how to accept the limitations that life places on it, it seems rude to me to just tell him he didn't want it bad enough.
thing is, he didn't accept the limitations, he categorically cut off his "Dream". The whole point is, if you are going to super rigid about the criteria of your "dream" then you are likely going to be defeated by all kinds of hurdles. You need to adapt. If at the first hurdle you give up, then likely it's just a whimsical fantasy, not something you seriously wanted in your life. To me, it's not rude. It is ok to give up on things like that if it's not really seriously what you want. Which is essentially what he is saying. I'm saying not to confuse it with the dreams that the commenter above is saying, things that he seriously wants to be part of his life. Not whimsical fantasy. For that, pursue it, adapt, change, find solutions, don't be rigid. Hence the problem with the term "Dream"
There are amputees that do snowboarding with specially designed prosthesis and boards, so there is certainly a way to take load off weak knees with appropriate gear. OP is just, quite reasonably, not prioritizing this minor dream enough to invest so much time and money in it at the expense of other priorities.
As much as the serenity prayer comes across as some tacky shit you'd find painted on a wall in that one handwriting font in a beach house in Florida... it's the greatest distillation of human wisdom I've ever found.
I've been in therapy many years, and you wouldn't believe how often it comes up and we discuss it in the context of some problem in my life. So much of life's difficulties hinge on the axis of trying to figure out where we can place our agency and where we should.
Exactly; powerlessness is a big source of stress / anxiety / etc, but when you truly accept that you can't for example change other people or things outside of yourself will never be exactly the way you want them to be, then you'll be a lot more at peace.
To phrase it negatively, it's a kind of selfishness / indifference. But it's not "I don't care", but more "it is what it is".
The difficult part is to also be careful as to not become one of those YouTube "stoics" who just stay in "I don't care" state for everything. We can't control other people, but we can try to influence them towards a better path if needed.
I see some people accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, but then have no courage to change the things which should be changed because they have no wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.
The two people I knew who really liked the serenity prayer (and wanted everybody to notice) were assholes. It can mean something like "See, I struggle every day with important issues concerning my power, and, I'm wise about it too! Also I consulted God, turns out you have to put up with some things," which makes it into an excuse for being really controlling.
My preferred version: do what you can, don't sweat it.
> How did they rule out the possibility that the post-pandemic economic situation has had a greater impact on these jobs, leading to greater stress?
I only skimmed the paper, but I presume it is comparing remote workers to non-remote workers who also have gone through the same post-pandemic economic situation.
They use different industries to represent remote workers and non-remote workers. However the same economic situation can have very different effects on different industries.
I'm always surprised this topic comes up all the time and there's all sorts of navel gazing about economics and housing and other reasons people want to have fewer kids. It seems to me that the simplest and most likely explanation is:
Having kids was never a primary motivation. Having sex was. Kids were just a hard-to-avoid downstream consequence of that. Once you have the pill, which makes it much easier to have sex without creating kids (and in particular, which allows women to avoid having kids even when they are raped), then the natural result is that there are a lot fewer babies popping out.
Because for the majority of sex acts, babies were never the goal in the first place.
I don't think the data support the conclusion that contraceptives are the main driver behind the decline in fertility. Contraceptives have been available for a long time and fertility is continually decreasing even when nothing changes in the availability of contraceptives.
It seems a natural consequence of the pill is going to be that in a few generations, most of the people will be of the kind for whom babies are a goal if not the main goal.
Thinking of the Amish, or Orthodox Jews, or Trad Caths, Quiverfulls, etc. If they're averaging 4+ and everyone else is down below 1, how quickly does the world turn over?
Yeah. I think there's a couple of reasons why people think this way:
1. There is still shame associated with wanting sex. We're not ashamed of wanting food or sleep, but sex, oh no,
2. People change after having children and it's permanent. They forget what they were like before. It's kinda like taking LSD or something. These things can fundamentally change you as a person.
There is abortion option. And adoption. But to me it has always sounded like that most make it work somehow. So once there is a kid economics can in many cases workout somehow. Maybe not optimally but somehow. With even more kids later.
I agree, I suspect what Ladybird is doing here may become the normal social model for open source going forward.
We still need some mechanism for determining which humans have enough long-term commitment to become maintainers. Source contributions are no longer a reliable signal for that, and I don't know what future signal we'll use going forward. That's going to be a hard problem.
But, who knows, if AI really does make programmers radically more productive, maybe successful open source projects don't need a large maintainer team.
I certainly agree that the powerful elites bear a disproportionate share of the guilt for the harm they have caused.
But I also believe that much of what's going on in the world isn't solely their fault and is also in many ways an emergent behavior. We are all like ants in an ant mill. Each of us is doing the things that locally make sense for us (even taking into account our desires to take care of the earth!), but our interactions with the economy and the market build a sort of giant super-organism out of us all whose behavior is to fuck up the climate.
> We are all like ants in an ant mill. Each of us is doing the things that locally make sense for us
Easily lead by chemtrails, yes - but it is a fact that some individuals have disproportionately more influence over "local zeitgeist" than others.
As a brief recap; the atmosphere become a greater and greater insulating blanket as a direct result of human use of fossil fuels was solid science as far back as 1967 [0] and the larger more influential nations of the world accepted that finding and discussed actions in the 1970s [1].
Since that time there's been a near non stop flood of FUD about the inevitable effect of rising CO2 that has been pushed out by the likes of the Koch brothers (now just one), Christopher Monckton, and many others directly benefitting from fossil fuel industry.
People in middle North America rolling coal and spitting on public transport projects have had their worldview been shaped by media crafted by think tanks with a mandate to obscure cold(?) reality and that lifestyle has set as aspirational to the world.
> it is a fact that some individuals have disproportionately more influence over "local zeitgeist" than others.
Yes, that was the first sentence of my comment.
> As a brief recap; the atmosphere become a greater and greater insulating blanket as a direct result of human use of fossil fuels was solid science as far back as 1967 [0] and the larger more influential nations of the world accepted that finding and discussed actions in the 1970s [1].
Yes, and I'm well aware of all of that and am firmly on the side of believing in climate change.
And yet, I still go to a grocery store and buy produce that was grown using fertilizer made from petroleum products, shipped across oceans on ships burning fossil fuels, then driven to the store in trucks burning fossil fuels, wrapped in plastic bags.
So even while I am aware of the problems, my own behavior as a tiny cog in the machine furthers the problems of climate change. I can bring reusable bags to the store (I do), drive a fuel-efficient vehicle (I try to), and shop at farmer's markets to reduce transit usage (sometimes), but that only chips away at the problem. My entire lifestyle is predicated on massive use of petroleum products and processes that worsen climate change. I walk on concrete side walks, have electricity in my home, go to a doctor's office that uses plastics pervasively.
I am part of the system that leads to climate change, as are you. Writing and reading this comment is spending electricity that is likely partially fueled by fossil fuels.
> And yet, I still go to a grocery store and buy produce that was grown using fertilizer made from petroleum products, shipped across oceans on ships burning fossil fuels, then driven to the store in trucks burning fossil fuels, wrapped in plastic bags.
For what it's worth, I'm part of a rural community far far away from middle North America and eat and consume much as my parents and grandparents did (my father, born 1935) when they were young and during those times (WWI, WWII, Covid years) when we were isolated from much of the world.
My personal consumption habits are pretty damn lean - my professional consumption patterns have been large, although easily arguably subject to being amortised across tens of millions, and have led to kind of global resource mapping and geodetic data that this current generation should be using to address excessive fossil fuel consumption.
This is an excellent checklist for doing something novel, but it doesn't provide any guidance towards doing something valuable that's original.
I don't think anyone has tried to build an ocean-going floating platform for raising wolverines for the pet trade, and that certainly checks everything on the checklist. Likewise composing a seven-part symphonic cycle written for bagpipe, slide whistle, and djembe with aleatoric and audience-participation components. Or inventing a way to knit edible garments out of extremely gluten-rich pasta. Training ravens to play Roblox games.
But are those worthwhile projects? I suppose there's only one way to find out.
reply