How much water would this process need to make enough energy for this to have an impact? Presuming we wouldn't use up our fresh water resources for this and that it would come from the ocean, but would this process create potential threats to the marine habitat as the mineral/chemical concentrations of the ocean water shifted?
I essentially used the 4 hour workweek script and am somewhere in the middle of that timeline, setting up my business now. 1. Figured out how to get all of my work done super fast 2. Started taking days off and working remotely using my above efficiency skills to put more and more time into my side project while still meeting all of my deadlines and obligations 3. Negotiated a remote and part time contract that only has me in the office 3 days a week. 4. Grind.
I'm still in the setup phase of my business (a hydroponics farm/green wall installations) but being able to devote entire days to getting going has been immensely helpful.
I started working the new contract about a month and a half ago. It was hard staying focused at first and I was a little too happy - go - lucky with my newfound freedom (Overwatch). So, while I was getting everything done for my 9-5, I've been moving slowly on the farm. Things have been better these past two weeks and I'm excited to get cranking in a serious way.
I should note that before I had even considered building a business or taking this step, I'd been doing research for the past 4 or so years that started my last semester in undergrad. I'd also done many small scale, non commercial projects for different clients in the evenings/weekends before I made the jump. Like another poster, to me, this is the equivalent to grad school. I could spend a bunch of money on an MBA and learn some things, or I could start this business, learn hands on, and potentially walk away with profit instead of debt.
>> 1. Figured out how to get all of my work done super fast
I always assumed that, as developers, we couldn't afford to automate writing code (as Tim's proposition is originally to automate the income), and so you do your work faster. Can you comment how you do that, how did you buy your remote time from that, etc.?
I'm not a developer, I'm a researcher. However, a big take away from the book for me that I'd imagine would apply to developers as well was not answering emails or going to meetings. He get's into how to do this politely and gradually, and it's definitely saved me time.
The gist of it is, generally, no matter how huffy the person at the other end is, what they're sending you is probably not an emergency. That being said, you can afford to batch your emails so you are only going through and responding to them once or twice a day as opposed to constantly losing your train of thought to reply to them or read them. This might not exactly apply to you, but reading 4hww got me to consciously think what sorts of things I might be able to cut. Actually taking the time to notice what those things are could help anybody I'd guess.
I got my remote time from that because I've been working at the same org for 2 years and have kept track of my wins/successes. I've gotten a lot of those because I've learned to be more efficient using ideas like the ones above. Over those two years, I've also noticed that our org has a problem retaining mid level employees and so I was able to leverage that when talking about remote time as well.
So I'm not automating my income, but I am saving time by cutting unnecessary tasks.
I'm about halfway through the process as described in an underpaid non-profit position (ie, going remote, setting up automated systems, wasting less time in meetings/emails). Although I'm not now because what I'm working on is analytical and research-dependent, I will be able to outsource parts of my job in the future. A successful business is not a prerequisite. If you give it another read looking for other paths, they are there, they just aren't the flashy "automate your business"
Frustrated by the people who are claiming that this piece or the company is racist/unexceptional, or that this man's success is due to exclusively hard work. They are missing a greater point that hard work and circumstance are both needed and one is significantly less useful without the other, and that there are structural social challenges that should be addressed.
It's also very possible to praise this, and everyone else's, achievement without: comparing starting circumstance in an attempt to one-up each other on the tragedy train, discounting luck, or discounting other struggles.
It's pretty easy to argue against that comic. Most of it is made-up anecdote. 2 of the 3 testable claims it makes are completely and nonsensically wrong, almost to the point of complete fabrication. The third testable claim I don't know how to google.
Poor Americans don't live in overcrowded homes. Only 3.3% of those homes have "severe physical problems" (what I'm interpreting the comic to mean), and they typically have 2 rooms/person.
I don't have stats on classes sizes - do you? I suspect the author of that comic didn't bother to google before writing it.
I'm not even going to try and refute the made-up anecdotes, e.g. dying father, parents who don't care about academics, and a boss who looks like a dog.
You seem like just the type of person I wanted to read that comic when I decided to put that in. You're fully missing the point (forest through the trees type of thing) with those stats; the unarguable part is that life circumstances often allow some people to snowball minor successes/advantages and prevent the same from happening to others.
Basically, that comic represents a very realistic, though maybe not statistically significant if it were to be taken literally, situation. It illustrates that results are not dictated by hard work and there is not equal opportunity. It is an attempt to help people empathize.
It's not saying that the guy on the left is a shit (though maybe unaware of his blessings), but rather that the woman on the right (anecdotally representing marginalized society) may be trapped no matter how hard she works. Sure she can beat it, but look at everything else she has to overcome to do so.
The point is that while circumstances like what are described in the comic are super rare. If we want to take into account ridiculously rare circumstances and call it "very realistic", why stop there?
Richard's parents sent him to personal trainer who taught him to be a track star. Paula had her legs chopped off by Islamic terrorists.
Richard's parents taught him to ground his electronics projects. Paula got struck by lightning 3 times.
Richard didn't like to go to the beach. Paula had her right hand eaten by a shark.
etc.
You can prove anything if you pretend wildly improbable freak situations are somehow representative of reality.
If you want to claim we don't have equal opportunity, I don't disagree. Some folks have advantages - e.g. the author of this blog post was born into the right race to get major bonus points in the educational system, had a mother who knew how to game that system, had US citizenship, etc. In contrast, all I had was US citizenship. Most folks don't even have the citizenship, and a large number of them are members of a race that's treated even worse than mine.
But if you want to talk about the practical significance of this - whether she's actually trapped or whether she just needs to work 10% harder - then you need to think about the details, which the comic gets wildly wrong.
"You can prove anything if you pretend wildly improbable freak situations are somehow representative of reality."
That's true, but what is represented in the comic is far from "wildly improbable" and in fact comes across as pretty realistic. That's why many people like it.
It can't be that hard to believe that there are many situations where a person has several small things, often not worth studying, wrong in their lives that compound over time. That's the point.
At the end of the day, I think that we both agree more than not and that you're more taking issue with the fact that I said "impossible to argue" than the larger point, which is totally fine because it was a melodramatic thing to say.
Details the comic got right (btw, comic depicts Australia I believe, but it's equally applicable to US so we'll go with that, it's also hard to attribute the later panels to one given, testable factor, as what's depicted is the result of all the small things in life):
Houses with extended family: "57 million Americans now live in some sort of multigenerational configuration. That number has doubled since 1980," including 36% of young adults [1]
Frequent illness: "The Connecticut Commission on Children reports that children who live in poverty experience more illness than children in more affluent homes." [2]
Parents working 2 jobs: "more than 7 million people in this country were holding 2 or more jobs. That’s 5% of the total workforce" [3] The Bureau of Labor Statistics number doesn't count jobs for cash etc.
low income=shitty schools. not even going to bother to search that one.
working while in school (less time to network, study etc.): "over 78% of undergraduate students work" DOE [4]
Citing a bunch of statistics about non-poor people who work multiple jobs, and irrelevancies like multigenerational configuration, are not really supporting the comic.
It's quite true that people with lots of money (like Richard's parents) tend to work long hours. And 5% of the workforce - most of them non-poor - might work 2 jobs. That's almost exactly the opposite of what the comic portrays.
Similarly, attributing things like poor people getting sick more on things like a damp house (or otherwise lacking money) is simply wrong. We now have an actual randomized trial to demonstrate this. http://m.qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/2/687
Most likely some third hidden factor (for example low conscientiousness resulting in poor work habits and poor health habits) causes both poverty and poor health.
I'm not disputing the idea that some folks have a leg up on life. I'm simply disputing a comic that wildly misleads about the actual nature of that leg up.
Also, on the thing you are "not even going to bother to search", the question is not whether poor schools have bad outcomes. The question is whether those schools are significantly worse themselves - i.e., if we were to reduce class sizes, would outcomes improve? (Most studies suggest that small class sizes - like virtually every educational intervention - would barely change outcomes.)
I'm sorry what? Your interpretation of the comic is that it's claiming that poor Americans all live in the worst 3.3% of homes and have dying dads and bosses who look like dogs?
The comic is saying that poor children have reduced access to resources and opportunities. That is testable, and widely accepted as true. Are you saying it's false?
Panel 2: Paulas house is full of people and not much else. It's damp and noisy and she keeps getting sick.
My interpretation of this is that Paula's house is overcrowded and has severe physical problems that make her sick. How do you interpret it?
Panel 3: That's why they're working two jobs.
My interpretation of this is that Paula's parents are working two jobs, and as a result cannot help her with homework. In contrast, Richard's parents in the left side are doing exactly that. How did you interpret it?
Like I said in grandparent, I interpret it as saying that poor children have reduced access to resources and opportunities. Which is testable and widely accepted as true.
The comic also explicitly claims that poor Americans are all named Paula, have been recommended Eazee Finance, and work as cater-waiters. Why didn't you take those literally? I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure at least one of those is also false. I think I met a poor person once who said she'd never heard of Eazee Finance. She might've misheard me, what with her poor hearing because the house she grew up in was so damp and noisy. Her name was Paula though, so anecdotally that checks out.
So we are now agreed that none of the factual matters described in the comic are remotely representative of poor Americans? And actually all these extreme examples are just somehow representative of some nebulous and vague "reduced access"?
Incidentally, "reduced access" is not a testable prediction - how would I test it? What does it even refer to?
You may be surprised to learn that none of the factual matters in the story of the hare and tortoise are remotely representative of real hares and tortoises. Not only have there been no recorded instances of hares or tortoises using human speech, scientists are fairly sure that they are physiologically incapable of human phonology.
I don't understand what you're saying. There is a consensus that poor Americans are at a disadvantage when it comes to school, business, and health. Are you challenging that that's the consensus, or do you acknowledge that that's the consensus but you're challenging whether it's true?
It has to happen in real life to be an anecdote. Did the comic give the impression of being biographical accounts of two people who coincidentally end up interacting at an event where one of them is being congratulated?
That's a really good comic. I grew up very privileged and it's easy to give in to some of the thoughts that are displayed. I know far too many of my peers who probably wouldn't see the irony in it if you chopped off the right half.
"comparing starting circumstance in an attempt to one-up each other on the tragedy train"
This kind of thing is all too common among those who advocate for ideologies which they believe would make the world a better place. They lose the audience, and undermine their own claimed goals. As someone that cares about social justice, I think shining a light on this (and other unfortunate parts of 'the movement') is one of the most important things to do at this point.
You just proved the point. You're arguing socioeconomic cirumstance (which I think should be helped out) over race. If you're solidly middle/upper class, shouldn't matter what colour you are.
My science fair experiment was literally building a cannon. I lit hairspray on fire and shot potatoes at a wall and don't even remember signing a waiver.
Really enjoyed this. I'd often get in political and fiscal discussions with my friends and found that it just really wouldn't click with some people. They'd get mad and things would get personal (I can get pretty defensive myself). The realization that "When you attack someone’s opinion, you attack their identity" was huge for me.
People have different values of associations with different opinions, and while it's a shame I can't discuss things like international development issues with some friends because they hold their opinions about that too close to their personality, it has helped me to start looking out for bad conversation paths.
However, as the top comment on reddit says: "They're still my friends, but I just don't ever have any actual proper conversations with those ones - we instead just have boring conversations about cheese or something."
