> if it doesn't hurt then you're not making optimal development
this is almost certainly wrong - 100% balls to wall training will surely be suboptimal (on avg) to achieving most fitness goals - eg within a running training block there will generally be recovery and "general aerobic" runs which are easy in effort relative to the harder work in the block. These easy efforts are necessary to optimally achieve the desired physiological adaptations acquired through increased volume and "nailing" the hard workouts. The easier runs enable this by getting volume at lower risk of injury + conserving energy/will for the key workouts.
This also doesn't consider how important recovery is to optimal results (as in sleep, rest, self-care etc).
on first glance it seems like an interesting take, but then you realize (as someone else already pointed out) that the fastest thing in the universe is not fast, and therefore nothing is fast? a little more thought should make you realize this is a poorly formed take. Also, worth repeating, please read the article before posting. It may be that your insight or critique is present and discussed in the article already.
I also hate Tableau for this reason. However, it's a bad pattern to be storing custom SQL in a BI tool IMO. Better to create tables or views which hold your report logic and are stored in git. That way you're decoupling defining metrics and business logic from your BI tool, making that information queryable in your warehouse by users or other tools (and easily viewable!).
Possibly - but I could just claim that for me déja vu is exactly when two experiences are not differentiable from one another. And if someone claims to have experienced this moment before, identically, how would I refute their claim. It's their experience after all.
How does déja vu, that is the re-experiencing an experience, fit into this theory? It appears that the Information axioms fails to be Essential when one considers déja vu.
Who are the trained professionals prescribing and dosing out smartphones and social media? Like, I get your analogy, but they are so dissimilar in practice that it just ends up reading naive.
I commented this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating because actually reading the author's arguments (granted, in other writings, not OP) will allow you to see he's considered this point and is will to accept that causation works the other way around.
It's a fair point. But what explains the uptick in depression and mental health issues starting around 2012, disproportionately impacting pre-teen girls and not contained to any geo. The author's entire point is that social media is the only explanation that that has been proposed [1]. Moreover, it's not a far-fetched explanation. He very aware that correlation does not provide causation, and that it could be the other way around. However, no one (according to him) has offered up a theory which explains the data like the social media theory does.
It's a fair point. But what explains the uptick in depression and mental health issues starting around 2012, disproportionately impacting pre-teen girls and not contained to any geo. The author's entire point is that social media is the only explanation that that has been proposed. Moreover, it's not a far-fetched explanation. He very aware that correlation does not provide causation, and that it could be the other way around. However, no one (according to him) has offered up a theory which explains the data like the social media theory does.
The author, Jonathan Haidt, has considered the global financial crisis but doesn't believe it explains the data [1], he writes
"It’s not because of the Global Financial Crisis. Why would that hit younger teen girls hardest? Why would teen mental illness rise throughout the 2010s as the American economy got better and better? Why did a measure of loneliness at school go up around the world only after 2012, as the global economy got better and better? (See Twenge et al. 2021). And why would the epidemic hit Canadian girls just as hard when Canada didn’t have much of a crisis?"
He is admittedly open to other ideas, but claims that no one to date has been able to provide a explanation for the upticks depression and mental health issues which disproportionately impacts young, pre-teen girls and is seen across many developed countries.
I do like this type of reminder, it's a good and clearly communicated message. It's interesting to me because at some level what the author is communicating is metrics 101 - when comparing performance across products/features/content/etc, normalize the timeline to time since launch. This is a simple principle and one that I apply often to work specific settings, but can easily forget to apply in social settings like the author describes. There's a lot of value to applying a semantic layer to your life, which is obvious but challenging due to influence of emotions and the lack of clear goals.
Agreed. It also reminded me of the book Illness as Metaphor by Susan Sontag. In the essay she talks about the social perception and behaviors around illness and how those create real barriers to overcoming and curing disease. Specifically, the she writes about how consumption was at one time fashionable due to the gaunt physique and blasé attitude TB would often cause.
Frankenstein is such a great story, jam packed with philosophical inquiry. Not having read the book since HS, this[1] episode of In Our Time was both nostalgic and interesting.
Love the style already. Here's a footnote from Chapter 1, and a reason while I'll continue to (very leisurely) read this book.
> When I was an undergraduate, I attributed recursion to “elves” instead of the Recursion Fairy,
referring to the Brothers Grimm story about an old shoemaker who leaves his work unfinished
when he goes to bed, only to discover upon waking that elves (“Wichtelmänner”) have finished
everything overnight. Someone more entheogenically experienced than I might recognize these
Rekursionswichtelmänner as Terence McKenna’s “self-transforming machine elves”.
Fair point, but this isn't a cheap bike, so maybe at least make the option available?
I also am not certain on the exact reasons why internal gear hubs and belt drives are more expensive. I imagine manufacturing those hubs are more costly just by the nature of their design. It also used to be the case that you needed a specific frame built for a belt drive to run one, but they make breakable belts now so that's no longer a huge restriction.
I have heard in Europe where bike commuting is far more common in the US where I'm living that belt drive and internal gearing are more common, but this was hearsay.
this is almost certainly wrong - 100% balls to wall training will surely be suboptimal (on avg) to achieving most fitness goals - eg within a running training block there will generally be recovery and "general aerobic" runs which are easy in effort relative to the harder work in the block. These easy efforts are necessary to optimally achieve the desired physiological adaptations acquired through increased volume and "nailing" the hard workouts. The easier runs enable this by getting volume at lower risk of injury + conserving energy/will for the key workouts.
This also doesn't consider how important recovery is to optimal results (as in sleep, rest, self-care etc).