There are enough responses on this thread that sound like "only a psychopath or an artist could have come up with this." or "It sounds like prison! Gosh" or "This is like living in a nightmare tbh." that if anyone does find this helpful, they're going to have a hard time mustering the courage to admit it. This is especially if true of the sort of more junior people who might struggle to know when to ask for help vs when to avoid interrupting someone.
I would advise reaching out to https://www.focusmate.com/, whose users would likely also find this product useful.
No, we allowed people to change their own dietary habits and they chose to do so.
> There's no reason we couldn't change them back.
There is a reason: The probability that they would respond with violence that would spiral into a massive humanitarian crisis.
Remember that the Syrian civil war was kicked off in large part by the prices of food in the Arab world putting pressure on pre-existing fault lines.
> Going back to a mostly vegetarian food supply would liberate so much land mass that you would have fewer issues feeding the world.
You're not wrong about the destination...but the path to get there matters if you want to avoid making things worse. Also, there is a massive difference between freeing up the alfalfa fields of California and the grazing lands of Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The word "just" in this sense is a signal that you might easily be underestimating the difficulty or cost of something.
> We just need to make meat cost prohibitive enough to force the majority of people to eat the majority of their meals vegetarian.
If you were talking about persuasion, this would be fine.
When you start talking about forcing people to change their habits, it is time to take a step back and get curious about those other people's perspectives. In this case, you're talking about the daily or weekly dietary habits of more than 2 billion people.
Before moving forward, you should have a clear answer to the question of how many megadeaths you are willing to cause through war and famine.
It is rather uncommon to believe that people in a society where everyone can publish their opinions must be artificially manipulated into conflict and dissent. I’d think that harmony and consent must instead be artificially manufactured. I’m curious about your life experience here.
> that everyone forgets about the most significant problem in the USA - the top 5% of the country own over 80% of the wealth
I’ve heard this problem discussed on Joe Rogan’s podcast (the most popular podcast) and by Jordan Peterson (who is fairly popular among the center-right). What percentage of Americans would you say are unaware that wealth inequality is a problem?
> and the engineers and capitalists don’t pay much attention to the environmentalists, much like the frackers before them.
Because many environmentalists are so unwilling to accept a massively imperfect solution that getting their buy-in would be as futile as trying to build affordable housing in San Francisco.
ADHD-PI here. I use a version of Pomodoro technique with adaptations inspired by Leadership is Language by David Marquet and by what Prof. Andrew Huberman says about Dopamine.
Blue: Come up with my intended outcome. Set a duration from 10 to 45 minutes in proportion to my intuitive confidence that I am “on the right path”.
If I am spending too long in blue, then say the thing I’m most anxious about. State a hypothesis about it and frame my intended outcome as a test of that hypothesis.
Red: Execute at speed while still noting any surprises in a notebook.
Blue: Reflect on what I’ve produced and what I’ve learned. Notice any errors I made and think (without typing) about what led to them.
Green: 2-5 minutes meditation. Reconnect with my breath and body. Control my internal sense of time pressure.
—————————
Sidenote: I highly recommend both Leadership is Language and the Huberman Lab podcast to ADHDers and folks who just have struggles turning their intentions into action.
- "Learning a wide range of skills is useful and can let you combine them in ways others cannot."
- "You should not let your current path in life unduly limit your curiosity."
- "Sometimes life throws a curveball at you and a wide range of skills can unexpectedly be very handy."
- "There is a small subset of this list which, as an adult, you really should know how to do."
Unhealthy interpretations of that quote:
- "You are as unworthy as an insect if you specialise."
- "Time spent on one thing does not come at the cost of time spent on other things. You can manufacture time."
- "Developing a deeper understanding of a craft you're deeply curious about is not worth the time you give up learning other things."
- "A person who knows how to do all of this list of things competently has ever existed in human history."
(I assert that any person who has competently planned an invasion and died gallantly in the age where they had access to program a computer would be listed on wikipedia.)
(Also, if people didn't sometimes need specialised knowledge to make competent decisions, then central economic planning would have a hope of working.)
Part of the issue is inter-team communication and part of the problem comes from that very phrase "dumbing down". I often hear people argue for "dumbing things down" when there is an overwhelming amount of information, but that phrase:
1. Treats people's intelligence as 1-dimensional, which it is not.
2. Gives no clear direction to an engineer who is passionate about UX, recognises that humans are multidimensional, and is trying to ask about what their users really need.
You might say I'm arguing semantics, but communication matters!
Without it, you can write code at high speed, but you won't learn what direction to go in order to present information appropriately and contextually to create a rich but easy, intuitive flow.
> this should make you more confident, not less, in the safety of a well-tested vaccine.
Indeed it should! The fact that people are about to communicate messages such as "I am worried that this vaccine caused harm" means that it is more likely that this risk of harm is being appropriately managed.
It is directed towards a person who would write some software with clear expectation of money and release it for free.
It is directed towards himself.