I appreciate the point being made---that we're too reductive in how we view a healthy human body---but calling Patrick Mahomes "one of the greatest athletes on planet earth" is laughable. He's more healthy than many adults, but he's no means an outlier amongst _athletes_. Compare that claim to this header [1] by Cristiano Ronaldo. He jumped 2.6 meters, at pace, perfectly timed, to score a goal, in his mid-30s.
And more generally, I would take almost no health advice from American footballers, many (most?) of whom will go into old age with ailments and injuries due how they treated their bodies.
Are you sure? Compare before/after for the main affected regions (Holland Tunnel, Queensboro) versus the unaffected regions. We definitely need more data, but I think there's an immediate reduction in the obvious places.
"Before" and "after" are generic terms. A car might stop before the crosswalk (space). You might eat dinner after work (time). But "ex ante" and "ex post" specify a relationship to an (random) event or to specific information. For example, a data scientist might compute a quantity "ex ante". This means that the quantity was estimated using only forecast data. No historical data was used. It would not make sense, however, to say that a car stops ex ante the crosswalk.
I could have easily said "afterwards" and "beforehand", but I like "ex post" and "ex ante" when referring to before/after having access to specific information.
I don't think so. My problem was that I had a weak grasp of many basics concepts, and more critically I did not know in which areas I was weak. So while it's easy ex post to say "I could skip such and such section", it would have been impossible to make this judgment ex ante.
And in fact, I think a failure mode many people make is trying to predict which things they already know and then skipping those. This allows for blind spots to persist.
I suppose the one way to skip things correctly would be to have a coach. But that comes at a new cost ($), but maybe that works for some people.
Maybe 5 years ago, I was in a similar place. I had a particularly embarrassing moment at work when it clicked that I just... didn't know the basics. I was, to use an overused term, "mathematically immature".
So I made a commitment: I decided I would work through Khan Academy math for 1-hour a day for 1 year. I started with pre-K [1] (specifically counting) and watched every video and did every single exercise in order. I focused on mastery. I didn't rush myself, and I did not continue until I felt completely confident in the material. I just did this for a year. I think I go through roughly algebra 2. In my mind, it is critical to combine explicit knowledge (watch videos) with tactic knowledge [2] (do exercises). For example, you need to understand what a logarithm is conceptually but you also just need to do problems to get a feel for it. So this is fundamentally different than learning-by-grazing or just reading a book.
I could go on and on, but let me just say that it changed my relationship to math in a deep way.
My favorite quote on the meaning of life, from Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning":
> For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment. To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion: "Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?" There simply is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one's opponent. The same holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone's task is as unique as is his specific opportunity to implement it.
Can I make a suggestion? Most people in this thread will think you are wrong about the Cayman Islands. In this context, your comment, "Caymans is just a better jurisdiction," is provocative. You also claim you can think of 24 things that are better. Fine. But then this rambling comment with jargon and the all-too-common implication to "do your own research" is, from a rhetorical perspective, not persuasive. I'd be genuinely curious to hear a more detailed, layman-oriented answer.
Isn’t this analogy wrong? The question implied is: if shoplifting were legal and if some people shoplifted to feed hungry babies, should we make shoplifting illegal?
> I figured people were going to take issue with the opening anecdote about art, but that was simply the author trying to frame the story in an interesting way. The rest of the article was more compelling.
I don't disagree, but this is simply bad rhetoric. Don't start with an incorrect/misleading/confusing example, and then expect readers to stick with you for the more compelling stuff.
So someone could buy a coffee every weekday for 10-20 months before equaling this one capital expense, and that’s your argument for why wage workers shouldn’t consider it expensive?
I asked ChatGPT to improve your comment by making it "more thoughtful and less insulting":
> It's understandable that some people might not fully appreciate the complexity of ChatGPT's language prediction abilities. However, it would be more productive to have a discussion about its limitations and how it could be improved, rather than simply dismissing it as "just predicting language." Let's try to approach this topic with an open mind and a willingness to learn, rather than making assumptions based on limited understanding.
> I think a massive mistake I keep seeing people make is assuming that ChatGPT is a peak rather than a checkpoint at the bottom of the mountain.
I fully agree. The AlexNet paper was what, 2012? So in a decade, we've gone from "neural networks aren't useful" to self-driving cars, Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT, ... None of these tools is perfect yet, but to stress that point is to miss looming mountain.
And more generally, I would take almost no health advice from American footballers, many (most?) of whom will go into old age with ailments and injuries due how they treated their bodies.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMZ1O6uFdAE