Your point #3 is concerning. It is almost saying that people are now unable to assume other peoples' points of view. That the skill of empathy -- in a narrow technical sense, not even loading it with positive moral associations; hell, a scammer may use their ability to take another vantage point in order to mislead -- is disappearing. That people are losing a "theory of mind". Mass solipsism. Excellent, autistic sheep, confused by the people around them.
I think it's more just saying that second person narrative is not common and so it tends to throw people off. Not that your points aren't necessarily valid, but I don't think you can get all the way there just off of second person being an uncommon literary perspective.
I'd assume FooBarBizBazz meant my aside about the rise of the (once also fairly rare, if not so rare as second) first person narrative perspective in fiction, and increasing discomfort and difficulty with the 3rd person among younger readers. I'm not sure I'd assume this coincides with a decline in empathy, but do think it's worrisome that a huge body of literature, even recent literature, is harder for these folks to access than it was for those who grew up with 3rd person as the default and anything else being a notable stylistic choice.
This monopoly right is roughly equivalent to a bond (it is a bond in the archaic sense of "law"), given by the Falklands government to the satellite company, in exchange for the satellite infrastructure. The Bond's "coupon" isn't precisely fixed; it's the revenue that the company makes from its customers. To dissolve the monopoly would be roughly to default on this bond.
You can imagine an alternate timeline in which the Falklands literally sold bonds to finance this infrastructure. They would have sold bonds; the proceeds would have paid for the satellites; tax dollars (rather than subscription dollars) would then go to service the bond.
The core problem is that the infrastructure just isn't as valuable as people thought it would be, as a result of technological disruption.
There is probably value in the Falklands maintaining some infrastructure of its own for reasons of national autonomy. If they destroy this national monopoly, they'll be left dependent on a Starlink monopoly, over which they have even less control.
They should probably split the difference: Remove the monopoly, subsidize the company with tax revenue to keep it alive, and allow people to use Starlink if they want. This is a "partial default", but it doesn't totally screw anyone, and it looks out for their own autonomy.
Do you mean that you sold mutual funds at Vanguard, and used the cash to buy ETFs at eTrade? This means you had to pay tax on capital gains, right? Or is there some trick I don't know about, vis-a-vis converting mutual funds into equivalent ETFs, without a taxable event?
Many Vanguard mutual funds offer ETF as a share class of the fund. For those funds, shares in the traditional share classes can be exchanged for ETF shares, if you hold them at Vanguard.
But not all of the funds have an ETF share class. And if you hold Vanguard mutual funds elsewhere, you'd need to transfer them in-kind to Vanguard to convert.
... where "radical enough change" in this article refers to the period of starvation during WW2!
My understanding is that we don't have contemporary evidence of people successfully reverting arterial plaque, but I admit the studies probably didn't faithfully reproduce these starvation conditions!
Spreading "cope" hurts other people who read it and believe. Bomb-calorimeter energy is an upper bound on what your body can extract from the food, and limiting an upper bound works.
But ok, there is a problem with "CICO": Although true, it does psychologically put "CI" and "CO" on an equal footing -- whereas 90% of your attention really needs to be on "CI". The body is very efficient; exercising doesn't burn much. It's more for the purpose of maintaining some muscle mass as you drop weight. But junk food companies like to skew perception ("balance what you drink and do") to make it seem like a Big Gulp would be ok if only you ran more. Yeah, they're happy to shame and mislead overweight people, so long as they keep buying.
Your body doesn't absorb all the calories you consume, nor does it expend or store as energy all the calories you absorb. Biology is complicated and CICO is a flawed and condescending oversimplification. It's like telling people "well, you know, if you eat more than you need to, you'll gain weight". Duh, not helpful.
If you have a diet, say each week you eat X grams of meat, Y of vegetables, Z of cereals, and then next week (or for a number of weeks) you eat {X,Y,Z}1.1 or {X,Y,Z}0.9, that will have a net effect all else being equal.
There is nothing condescending about that. No-one is really claiming that all calories are equal e.g. you can replace 500 kcals of chicken with 450 kcals of olive oil and that be some sort of blockbuster great idea.
CICO does have an implicit "your diet isn't completely batshit insane" attached to it.
>It's like telling people "well, you know, if you eat more than you need to, you'll gain weight". Duh, not helpful.
It is a foundation to work from. Far better than believing that you can cheat thermodynamics, which is generally the alternative.
There are some fringe cases and nuances, but I have never heard of one that was relevant. Do you have a use case where deviations would matter?
Absorbed calories don't match label calories, but weight loss and gain are studied in terms of label calories, so it is irrelevant unless you are doing chemistry or particle physics.
Labels could be in terms of arbitrary moon units instead of calories and it would still be true. Weight loss is a function of moon units in and moon units out.
He's saying that, in the places where people do work harder, they don't actually have more/larger/better houses. Rather, the work just becomes part of a zero-sum competition that bids up the price of the (fixed) quantity/quality of houses.
This partially contradicts your point.
What I would add (to reconcile the two points), is that one kind of work is not fungible with another kind of work. Yes, people work very hard in Silicon Valley -- but they are not working hard at building houses. If they were, there'd be a lot of supply, and the price would fall.
Overall, this is perhaps a comment about the (mis-)allocation of work in society.
Many people, myself included, are skeptical of "therapy" and do not automatically consider its practicioners to be legitimate authorities. These are people who need a job just the same as you, and this is the one they landed in. Whether they do anybody any good is hard to say.
One source of skepticism is that they are not really invested in you. If you succeed or if you fail, if you're happy or if you're sad, what's it really to them? Will they have to live with the consequences? At least in a relationship the "therapist" maybe "has some shares" in the other person. (Granted, you can also reverse the logic, e.g., "my parents didn't pay attention to my happiness and just pushed me to become a doctor" / "my wife just wanted me to have money because she wanted to spend it".) This is also why I am skeptical of startup advisors: I'm sure they mean well, but, if you really don't know what you're doing, it's probably better to be an employee for a while, under a boss who succeeds only when you succeed.
Another is that, when I hear therapistic language, a lot seems to embed assumptions of omnipresent psychic violence, and this disturbs me. Perhaps there are people who truly are trapped in situations of "psychological abuse", "gaslighting", and so-on, but my sense is that these words usually become weapons that people wave around, as they adopt darker and darker interpretations of their own, imperfect but basically good, relationships. Then the cynic in me says: Wouldn't causing people to reject their "organic" relationships, create dependence on the relationship with the therapist?
That "therapy" grew out of psychology also is grounds for caution, to me. There is an underlying manipulativeness in the field. Many of the famous experiments, stories of which attract students into the field, were quite manipulative. Some of the core theories of psychology that you learn in school, like operant conditioning, are fairly inhumane. If this is the ground that you build on, what kind of structure do you get? Who is attracted to the field to begin with?
Also, the very fact that the meme is gendered tells you something. Sure, men don't trust therapists, any more than college-educated women trust bearded imams. If a whole school of thought seems somehow not to be on your side, you're not going to trust it. (And I do not mean to imply that to be "college-educated" is ideology-neutral, or that the hypothetical imam is not actually on the hypothetical woman's side.)
...
In the context of this blog post, though, I kind of get it. The guy literally climbed, if not Everest, then some similar peak in the Himalayas. So when you focus on that it's kind of funny.
I'm not sure how what he's doing is "wrong" and what other thing he could be doing would be "right" though. What is the therapist going to tell him to do, and why would that thing be superior to climbing mountains at random? Does existential angst even have a solution?
...
Some of the religions have their own answers, which would encourage different behavior, I suppose. E.g.:
a.)
> 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
> 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
> 38 This is the first and great commandment.
> 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
> 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
If the author of the blog repeated the second half of verse 39 to himself over and over, he might do something different. You do pushups, you develop muscles. You repeat mantras, and, if those mantras are really meaningful, you can shape your own mind.
Or, the works of mercy:
> feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, visit the imprisoned, bury the dead
> admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, bear wrongs patiently, forgive offenses willingly, comfort the afflicted, pray for the living and the dead
Add in Galatians 3:28 and you've got the high points of Christianity. If you take the words seriously they can affect how you think and what you do: "Right thought, right speech, right action".
One virtue that it emphasized, which is not emphasized to the same degree in Christianity, is honesty. Yes, Christianity inherits the Ten Commandments (which are actually good), but "thou shalt not bear false witness" seems like a somewhat more narrow thing. In much the same way that "though shalt not kill" is really, debatably, the more limited "though shalt not murder". Indeed, Jainism seems to go further than Christianity in many respects. Those virtues, by the way, are (per the previously-linked text):
> 2. Mardava - Tenderness or Humility (To observe the virtue of humility subduing vanity and passions.)
> 3. Arjaya - Straight-forwardness or Honesty (To practice a deceit free conduct in life by vanquishing the passion of deception.)
> 4. Shaucha - Contentment or Purity (To keep the body, mind and speech pure by discarding greed.
> 5. Satya - Truthfulness (To speak affectionate and just words with a holy intention causing no injury to any living being.)
> 6. Sanyam - Self-restraint (To defend all living beings with utmost power in a cosmopolitan spirit abstaining from all the pleasures provided by the five senses - touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing; and the sixth - mind.)
> 7. Tapa - Penance or Austerities (To practice austerities putting a check on all worldly
allurements.)
> 8. Tyaga - Renunciation (To give four fold charities - Ahara (food), Abhaya (fearlessness), Aushadha (medicine), and Shastra Dana (distribution of Holy Scriptures), and to patronize social and religious institutions for self and other uplifts.)
> 9. Akinchanya - Non-attachment (To enhance faith in the real self as against non-self i.e., material objects; and to discard internal Parigraha viz. anger and pride; and external Parigraha viz. accumulation of gold, diamonds, and royal treasures.)
> 10. Brahmacarya - Chastity or celibacy (To observe the great vow of celibacy; to have devotion for the inner soul and the omniscient Lord; to discard the carnal desires, vulgar fashions, child and old-age marriages, dowry dominated marriages, polygamy, criminal assault on ladies, use of foul and vulgar language)
In particular, I note both Arjaya and Satya.
(A new thing to me, that I notice now, is the inclusion of abhaya (fearlessness) as a kind of tyaga -- a kind of renunciation, a giving-away, a charity. This is food for thought.)
(And personally I would moderate Sanyam.)
My point is, if one needs direction, perhaps these are where one should be looking?
