Anecdotally, Vitamin D and B12 had more of a positive effect on my mental health than therapy or any of the half dozen prescription meds I tried.
Hiking has the biggest effect though.
I think maybe the problem is that therapists are diagnosing people, and psychiatrists are prescribing pills based on those diagnoses, but neither are ordering bloodwork to check for deficiencies. Which leads to a lot of people suffering from lack of basic health, and treating the symptoms with SSRIs that have withdrawl symptoms a million times worse than most of the problems they treat.
Now to your point, I seriously doubt that vitamin D will hold up against anti-depressants and therapy if we control for other health and quality of life issues. I just think there is a ton of misdiagnosis, and lack of root cause analysis in the mental health field, and health care in general.
There's so many ways to do this, but a simpler method is to hide a small logic block (somewhere in the 10 billion transistors of your CPU) that detects a specific, long sequence of bits and invokes the kill switch.
There's an orthogonal aspect to it: control. I know I need some amount of noise to stay grounded and look outwards instead of collapsing into infinite reflection regression - but I also need control over that noise. That is, it needs to be my noise. Living in noise introduced by people around me is not reinvigorating, it's draining and depressing.
Former Rebble dev here, I've been very happy with the BangleJS. It doesn't meet all of your criteria but the battery lasts me a week and it's more hackable than Pebble ever was.
This is a great point. Toxicity is entirely orthogonal to performance. And you rarely have to worry about toxic low performers: if you're unlucky enough to hire them, they don't stay around for long.
But toxic top performers are IME one of the biggest challenges a manager will have to deal with. You have to root them out the moment they land in an organization because given enough they'll push out the non-toxic top performers, leaving you with a toxic asshole and a bunch of flunkies. And you have to convince everyone outside the team that yes, they get things done, but they're enough of an asshole that you'd rather risk hiring someone to deliver less but also destroy less.
All this reminds me of the quote attributed to everyone under the sun (Clausewitz, various US civil war generals, Omar Bradley, you name 'em) but apparently was said by Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord[0]
> There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.
I think the value of low performers becomes much more obvious when you separate out the concept of a toxic employee. Toxic employees hurt the team or organization whether low performing or high performing, and with rare exceptions it’s almost always worth getting rid of them. Toxic employees are the people getting into arguments and conflicts all the time, dragging others down constantly. Or they’re the managers who cause attrition or can’t retain their team or lie to their peers and own leadership until it catches up to them, often dramatically.
However, low performers are not always toxic. Often, low performers are just kind of lazy, or they take longer than they should to finish their work, or they take too long to reply to emails or messages, or their work needs extra review and checks and balances, or they are only capable of delivering on a relatively small set of fairly simple tasks, or they just want to work on the same part of the same product forever and can’t emotionally handle change, or …
Non-toxic low performers can be great because they’ll often do the unglamorous work for you for relatively low pay, and all you have to do is not bother them too much. The worst thing you can do with non-toxic low performers is try to force them into high performers. It won’t work, because they’re either not capable or they just don’t care. For some people, their work just isn’t that important to them, and there’s nothing you can do to change their perception of the relative importance of their job to the other aspects of their life. What might look like low performance in a corporate environment can just be someone setting boundaries and refusing to let work infringe too much on their personal life.
> The second mistake they made is assume that companies would prioritize being lean and trimming the mediocre & bottom 5%. There are other considerations, combined productivity is more important than having individual superstars working on the shiniest features.
I'll add a perverse incentive too that I've talked about elsewhere – hiring is a goddamn mess right now.
If I trim the bottom 5% of my org (in my case, 2-3 engineers), I may not get a backfill for them. Or I'll have to drop their level from L5->L4 to make finance happy, or hire overseas or convert a FTE to a contractor.
I also have to be ready for the potential of RIFs happening, which means having an instantly identifiable bottom 5% puts me at the advantage of being ready when my boss says "give me your names".
So the time value of a staffed engineer is way higher right now than it might be in a few months. It'll never be zero, because proactively managing people out makes all of our managers happy. But for now, I definitely need my low performers.
The author talks also about the times, the era of the moon landings — and he had an interesting aside in the book that stuck with me about Elvis Presley (of all people):
---- snip ----
Always Elvis-sceptic, I once asked the photographer Alfred Wertheimer, one of the last to be allowed real access to the singer, why the girls in the crowd were crying—whether the tears were part of an act. He told me:
“Well, I think it was the fact that we’d been through this rigid Eisenhower era. Everything was cutsie-pie crinoline skirts and ‘How Much Is That Doggy in the Window?’; the girls knew their place and they weren’t women’s libbers yet; everything was very tightly organized. Then along comes a guy like Elvis ... he’d go onstage into a darkened auditorium, where there would be maybe 4,000 people — mostly young ladies, a few boys and then a few police, who were there just to make sure nothing ‘dirty’ was happening. From the very start, Elvis is focused on the girls and they’re in love with his hair and the way he curls his lip. And he talks to them and then he begins to sing and he lets it all hang out. His hair, which was immaculate, starts coming down and the sweat comes down—and do you think he stops to mop his brow or sweep his hair back up? No. He gets down on his knees, then gets back up: he is so revealing, so unconscious of his own body movements that all of a sudden the girls look at each other, after all the years of holding everything in, and they cry.
“They’re not putting it on the way you’d see girls doing in later years: they’re not screaming or jumping up and down, just holding each other and crying.”
I am surprised by how dismissive the whole post sounds. For example:
> OpenAI could in fact have a breakthrough that fundamentally changes the world
Well, it appears to me that OpenAI already has such a breakthrough- it had it roughly 4 years ago with GPT2, and it's still scaling it.
Considering that it's not yet a year since the introduction of the first ChatGPT, and given the pace at which it's evolving, I would say that the current product is already showing great promise to fundamentally change the world. I would not be surprised if just incremental changes were enough to fulfill that prediction. The impact at this point seems more limited by the ability of society to absorb and process the technology rather than intrinsic limits of the technology itself.
I would only use a mental health app where the provider is hipaa bound.
There’s a rash of “non-health” mental health apps and that’s just scary.
But even under hipaa providers, I expect they are deidentifying under safe harbor and reselling as much as possible. Imagine the training possibilities on all transcripts “scrubbed of pii.”
No, the ocean is not fully mapped. It's written in the article: "With only one-quarter of the sea floor mapped with sonar, it is impossible to know how many seamounts exist."
I think military folks sum all of this up as "embrace the suck." :)
> A mentor of mine likes to talk about experiential avoidance as a sort of "reverse compass." When we notice the desire to avoid something, it may actually be telling us what we need to move toward.
I rarely get life-changing advice from a podcast, but something I heard one time really stuck with me. This super-successful guy was talking about all the businesses he owned or something and the host asked him what his morning routine looked like. Paraphrasing, his answer was:
"After I've gone through my normal morning activities, I sit down and make a list of the things I need to do that day. I always look through the list and find the thing I want to do least, and I do that one first. Because I have found the things I don't want to do are almost always the most important."
One of my professors in grad school was really into wine and every couple of years he would put on an after-hours wine tasting class for a semester. One of the points he made was that there are absolutely wines which are objectively better and worse and that experts can reliably tell them apart. He had met enough experts who could identify a vineyard and vintage blind to know there was something to it. But sitting on top of that there is a frothy market that is driven by fads, speculation, and hype.
He was of the opinion that generally speaking the quality of a typical wine increases monotonically with price up until around the $40 range with the big steps around the $5, $10, and $20 price points. But above $50 or so, you're no longer paying for higher quality, per se. It's more that you are paying for a unique flavor profile and reliability. But unless you're seeking out that particular flavor profile, you can get a bottle that is just as good for $30-40 (and occasionally even cheaper). And above a few hundred dollars it's all just fads, speculation, and hype. (He liked to say that the people who buy those wines have "more money than sense.") They're good wines, but you can get a bottle that is just as good for a fraction of the price.
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’” - Dr. King, 1963
Hiking has the biggest effect though.
I think maybe the problem is that therapists are diagnosing people, and psychiatrists are prescribing pills based on those diagnoses, but neither are ordering bloodwork to check for deficiencies. Which leads to a lot of people suffering from lack of basic health, and treating the symptoms with SSRIs that have withdrawl symptoms a million times worse than most of the problems they treat.
Now to your point, I seriously doubt that vitamin D will hold up against anti-depressants and therapy if we control for other health and quality of life issues. I just think there is a ton of misdiagnosis, and lack of root cause analysis in the mental health field, and health care in general.