If only it was that easy... I really like the spirit of the "1000 true fans" slogan, but I think it is harder than you'd think. I only see a handful of success stories in a big pool of HN ppl discussing it here.
The peak endurance runner looks akin to a skeleton. The peak sprinter, bursting with life. Humans were made for spurts of activity followed by long periods of rest. Same is true for the work world.
That fallacy has been parroted on fitness forums (fora?) for almost two decades. There is a big dose of selection bias when looking at any elite athlete.
>Wikipedia hasn't been tainted like everything else.
The illusion of purity allows corruption to thrive. There are influence teams hired by VIPs who use Wikipedia as simply an extension of cable news/social media. To "get out in front of stories", or if they're late to the game, to scrub/"memoryhole" undesired ones. Wikipedia editing as an amusing hobby for niche nerds is an outdated concept for many topics.
Wikipedia is far too powerful a Persuasion tool to let fail. Its essay-long donation plea's are designed to garner credibility towards innocence. How nefarious could the site be? They're scrounging around for scraps each year!
I think it's understood that controversial topics and current events on Wikipedia are subject to manipulation. But I don't think TPTB are committing payroll to influence my opinion of "Ben Franklin" or "Norwegian Forest cat" or "semipermeable membrane".
Not a stretch to assume the data on one who pays for Youtube Premium is more desired than one who does not. 'Whales' to use a term in the mobile gaming market.
Source? I see this claim made in a few places, but I can't find any evidence beyond "Facebook was created the same day LifeLog was shut down" (February 4, 2004).
Not that I'm a fan of Facebook's data collection, but claiming it's a CIA operation is a substantial claim that would require substantial evidence beyond that date being shared, which very easily could be a coincidence. (Also, if it were really planned as a secret successor, why would they publicly do it on the same date?)
I'm pretty skeptical Zuckerberg was in contact with the CIA when he started Facebook in his dorm room if that's the only piece of evidence.
> Would you estimate that you have less periods of feeling nostalgia, for you cannot picture your childhood home?
I think so. I barely remember anything from my childhood. I experience nostalgia but probably less of it. For example, smelling garlic bread will make me think of my childhood home that was next to an italian restaurant. I can also perfectly remember the layout of the building. I remember the fear I had one day as there was no electricity and I had to climb 4 flights of stairs in pitch black. But I can't see any of it. I can't see what my grandmother used to look like. In a strange happenstance, I remember she looked a bit like the queen does on the $20 paper bills so I often get nostalgia by handling money. She did not look identical, but had enough "variables" that were identical for my mind to "confuse" or "link" the two, in a way. I know that when I was a child, I would confuse my parents or teachers with characters seen on TV.
> Would you estimate that you have less periods of feeling cringe, for you cannot re-play an embarrassing conversation in your mind?
Actually, I can remember conversations. I simply cannot hear them or see them. I still have the text transcript of it silently playback into my memory, bringing back conversations in my short term memory and allowing me to relive them. It's more like instinctively knowing, the same way you know 4+4=8 without imagining two bundles of four sticks. The only sound I can produce in my head is my own voice, so sometimes I will "talk" with someone else anyway. It is identical to how it would look to see me read outloud the dialogues for two characters. I have been told that people can even hear musical instrument... all I can do it focus hard and reproduce the noise of the instrument with my voice. So it just sound like acapella done by someone with no music talent.
To answer your question, I rarely have issues falling asleep. I do have memories of times where I was a teen and would struggle to fall asleep because I would think back on what happened at school. But it was a rare occurrence.
> Now the spicy, Ethical question. Would you estimate that you have less periods of feeling remorse for your actions?
Yes. I feel as if it has taken me more time than others to reach certain developmental milestones. Now that I am an adult, I have those remorse. I can think about how doing X would trigger Y and make someone feel like Z. It's like a huge mindmap. But before being able to juggle so many concepts, events and variables? I wondered for a long time if I might be a sociopath. Turns out I simply needed to learn all of those concepts from a different perspective. Like a left handed person trying to learn to write by attempting to mimic a right handed person.
'On November 8th of 2016, half the country learned that everything they believed to be both true and obvious turned out to be wrong. The people who thought Trump had no chance of winning were under the impression they were smart people who understood their country, and politics, and how things work in general. When Trump won, they learned they were wrong. They were so very wrong that they reflexively (because this is how all brains work) rewrote the scripts they were seeing in their minds until it all made sense again. The wrong-about-everything crowd decided that the only way their world made sense, with their egos intact, is that either the Russians helped Trump win or there are far more racists in the country than they imagined, and he is their king. Those were the seeds of the two mass hysterias we witness today.'
I chuckled alot when I read this so thank you for the laughts. Its hilarious to go online today and hear all Trump supporters to scream “fraud” and trying to argue that it has to be fraud since Biden broke all possible records including number of votes, number of black votes etc. Its even more laughable since it comes from exactly the same people who like you claimed huge Trump 2016 victory and were proud Trump broke all the records.
Chess is like Boxing. Pays nothing. The workload is insane, the natural talent is insane, your competition is global.
Only the very top 0.5% get name recognition (money). And like Boxing, these athletes could get paid more had they devoted their life literally ANY other pursuit with their work ethic and talent. With far less punishment involved.
Unlikely at the top levels. The top chess masters are taking home a better income than the average college graduate. Sure CEOs take home more, but typically not until later in life. If you can get great chess is a good career.
Of course few get great. Even if you don't get to great, many people make a satisfactory amount of money from chess (mostly teaching), so there are options.
Also, you can switch at any time when you realize how hard the competition is. Your study habits to get good will do you well in other positions so there is no loss failing so long as you get out soon enough. There is a reason many pretty good players quit after high school: they had fun now it is time to settle down. Some play once in a while, but it is no loss. Unlike boxing where a few knockouts and you may be mentally unfit to do anything with your life.
Read on Magnus Carlsen[0] and Josh Waitzkin[1] - both have top spots in other fields, (and I'm sure others do too, these are from memory). Either talent is less specific than you'd think, or work ethic is more important than you'd think.
I don't see this with Carlsen. Fantasy football? Well ... Waitzkin may be successful in martial arts but still that's the exception not the norm.
Also I would claim that talent is domain-specific insofar that very few people have a mental and a physical talent at the same time. For instance there are professional athletes who are very good in some other sport but I know of no one who is also very good at chess.
You may discard Fantasy Football, but it is not easy to be a top player - there are thousands of people who spend a few hours a day practicing, and have been for years. It’s been a while, but when Magnusen rose from “not playing”’to the top spot it was impressive and unusual.
Emanuel Lasker was iirc a very noted mathematician. As I mentioned, this is from memory. I’ve known a person who had both made the national swim team as a 19-year old, and was a national bridge champion in his thirties (not in the US).
I don’t know to separate talent from work ethics, but my layman’s impression is that that these aren’t simple, and definitely not independent, measures across fields.
The point is that they didn't come from some "Chess Prodigy" family. There wasn't some "talent" laying there that they picked up. And, even among the sisters, Judit wasn't the one with the most "talent".
Judit's level and achievements were due to training and persistence.
Still they might have a talent for chess and not for ballet for instance. It might be otherwise but that was my claim and the Polgars don't refute it.
Also the Wikipedia page says she was a "chess prodigy". From my personal experience I strongly doubt that you can make every five year old child a chess player who wins blind matches against grown-ups only through hard work.
"Prodigy" simply means you hit your 10,000 hours as a child.
And the "youngest grandmaster" title simply keeps moving downward, so apparently you can convert random 5 year olds into chess experts.
I really don't understand why people still cling to the notion of "talent" in intellectual pursuits. It's pretty clear that "number of hours" is what places you in the top echelons.
When you assume 8 hours a day straight work 10.000 hours means 3.42 years including weekends. I'll claim that's impossible (not to say inhumane) to do with a child.
