Why would the absolute amount of money matter for investing vs. saving cash? Assuming he finds a broker for which absolute transaction fees are negligible, the only important factors should be time window and risk tolerance, both of which are independent of the absolute saving rate.

For me, it’s not about having good content that is not on reddit, but avoiding all kinds of bad content that is on reddit. I can scroll through the “top of the day” list of my subscriptions in a relatively short time and find many posts that I enjoy or that interest me. When I used reddit, there was always so much noise, ragebait, clickbait, sometimes interesting questions with only bland answers, etc.

Asking as a layman, isn’t it well established that the stock market is extremely efficient and that active trading underperforms (for the same risk level) passively buying the market? Or does this not apply to very local markets?

All that I wanted were things I had before.

All that I needed, I never needed more.

All of my questions were answers to my sins.

All of my endings were waiting to begin.

What’s that concerning spike in the last years?

Don’t worry bro, I voted them back up for you. Except the Peter Griffnyn one, I downvoted that too.

Same in Germany, I think this common in many countries, no?

I hate him so much bros

Should ask somewhere else, you won’t find these people in a federated open-source communist link aggregator website.

I love the concept of this book but was pretty disappointed by the actual recipes tbh.

Yeah, tofu by itself can be very boring, but it really shines with the right spices or marinade. The simplest way to make tofu that still tastes great is to cut it up, put the pieces in a container with a tablespoon of soy sauce and some Sriracha (amount depending on your chili tolerance), and shake the container. Then you can use it in many ways, for example by placing it on something that is releasing a lot of steam, like rice that is almost done cooking.

No, for all jobs there is only limited supply. If more people want the job than there are jobs available, some of the people who want the job must necessarily end up not getting the job.

This article of a dentist testing other dentists gives some more anecdotal evidence: https://www.rd.com/article/how-honest-are-dentists/

In that case it actually makes sense because the main goal is to make an artificial entity appear intelligent to the player. This is not the same as calling all ML algorithms/models AI.

I’m kind of dissatisfied with the answers here. As soon as you talk about actually drawing a line in the real world, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers stops making sense. In other words, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers is a concept that describes numbers to an accuracy that is impossible to achieve in real life. So you cannot draw a line with a clearly irrational length, but neither can you draw a line with a clearly rational length. You can only define theoretical mathematical constructs which can then be classified as rational or irrational, if applicable.

More mathematically phrased: in real life, your line to which you assign the length L will always have an inaccuracy of size x>0. But for any real L, the interval (L-x;L+x) contains both an infinite number of rational and an infinite number of irrational numbers. Note that this is independent of how small the value of x is. This is why I said that the accuracy, at which the concept of rational and irrational numbers make sense, is impossible to achieve in real life.

So I think your confusion stems from mixing the lengths we assign to objects in the real world with the lengths we can accurately compute for mathematical objects that we have created in our minds using axioms and definitions.

Well maybe we should ‘hack’ his limbs off

Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll put it on my list.

I see a lot of hate against the concept of doing one’s own research on the internet and it really bothers me. The problem is not doing one’s own research. The scientists that wrote this paper also did their own research. All scientists (should) do their own research. That’s inherent to science and that’s part of what got humanity this far. The problem is that some people lack the capabilities to properly assess information sources and draw correct conclusions from them. So these people end up with incorrect beliefs. Of course they could just “trust the experts” instead, but how are they supposed to know which experts to trust if they’re not good at assessing sources of information? Finding those experts is in itself a task that requires you to do your own research.

TL;DR: I think this hate on “doing your own research” is unjustified. People believing nonsense is a problem that is inescapable and inherent to humanity.

Is this not just a (mildly oversimplified) framing of what psychologists call ego depletion [1]? This appears to be a well-replicated finding. I don’t see any reason to call it “wildly incorrect”.

[1] The strength model of self-control. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-18261-013

Edit: After some more research, it looks like the science is inconclusive on ego depletion. So I would not call it “well-replicated”, but also not “wildly incorrect”.

This blog post summarizes the science nicely: https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2023/10/30/a-conversation-about-the-science-of-willpower/ TL;DR: You can train your willpower. It does act like a limited resource [Edit: Science is inconclusive on this claim]. But most importantly, it is strongly affected by your sleep, nutrition and stress level.

I found that mindfulness meditation was helpful for me. Practically, you can achieve an effect that is similar to having strengthened willpower by organizing your life in such a way that you don’t encounter many temptations in the first place.