Experiments with similar starting conditions. Visible results. Either way this turns out, we will learn from it.

That should be done for any type of communication. How does the "curse of knowledge" relate to this specifically?

You have a different political belief than the one who you're supposed to write the speech for. This isn't related to knowing or not knowing something?

Has something changed since 2018?

Ha, web annotations to the rescue!

Then why not summarize these important content fragments into a single post learners should read?

I disagree somewhat with only curating parts of content or endless remixing of content. The value of reading original sources is that you form opinions and see connections yourself -- learning instead of memorising.

Meaning this speaking style is mostly meant to overwhelm and persuade you, not permit to make your own conclusions from the presented facts?

English vocabularly standardized more gradually than other languages -- with larger differences between writings.

You can also find your "tribe" on the internet -- many people (including me) find that much easier than in real life. You have many more opportunities for connections and can drop things that don't work.

Maybe the author's point is more about the serendipity of being in an environment with people of your interests?

I'd be wary of making general statements like that. For me, moving not just cities but countries has been the best thing I ever did -- but to get away from a comfortable environment, not into one as the article describes here.

We should only do changes like this. Innovation instead of looting.

What exactly is "good allocated to the maximum level of efficiency" supposed to mean? We're always producing new wealth that can be applied somewhere.

This article is the story of one insanely dedicated Wikipedia editor. There are 733 at least more.

The most honest way to edit or write.

Obviously there's no mention of Google Scholar ;)

I assume the following is a direct comparison to https://scholar.google.com/

I wonder what the author is referring to here.

"levelised costs" -- Is this system more expensive initially than installing lithium batteries?

Related to this, I think being proud of "read books" (or worse, counting them) and bringing that up in conversations is pure signalling. Books are not just there to be consumed.

Great essay on making knowledge your own: https://sive.rs/dq

I find that I increasingly skip introductionary sentences written by other people, or what's on the book cover. The book should stand on it's own, if you want actual understanding and not copying of opinion.

This means copying the reviewers opinion of the book instead of forming your own. Of course that's faster, but IMHO you cannot call it "understanding of the book". You're reading a different "book" written by the reviewer.

Do they run their own hardware?

Why did they do that? Any good source here?

Or the modern self-employed producer, which we see more and more of (gig work, internet creators etc). You generally have more choice today in your form of employment. It is not just about consuming.

Indeed. Being forced to have children out of material necessity is no good basis for societal growth.

How do those concepts fit thogether? Individualism means valuing yourself -- so there you are valuing something. Does it mean not caring about larger institutions then?

Yes, because we rarely make progress in other aspects. For technological problems there's a clear solution that people will buy if it works. Deliberate sociological change you may have to force, which is never a good basis.

Are China's politics cutthroat? As an ignorant western person it appears their government is always acting in unison, much more so than in the US for example. Definetely worth reading more on.

Exactly. He effectively created his algorithm on the training data set, and can't independently verify the results.

Notably, the words used in the game are meant to be guessed by humans -- so using an optimal strategy that considers every english word should perform fairly well.

I think the explosive social growth comes from this simplicity. You are not told how well you did or get to try multiple examples. The only way to find that out is to share the product.

Probably an unintentional effect, but a powerful one.

Not just "why we are afraid of big numbers", also why we do not intuitely understand exponentials (as referenced earlier in the article). Exponentials appear in nature, but humans rarely had to deal with them until a few thousand years ago.

The core of this hypothesis: Approximating things (e.g. numbers) is an innately human instinct, while precise computation using abstract symbols evolved only recently. In nature there's rarely a large difference between 1.0 and 1.1.

It's applied to the big number problem in the next paragraph.

Or very small numbers, like understanding how atoms work in order to synthesize stronger materials. Or in general, attempting to understand things that are outside our direct field of view and intuitive understanding.

I like the author's argument. Reasoning about big numbers is reasoning about what we don't know -- the first step of getting to know it.

Meaning, you can come up with a solution to an NP problem in polynomic time (something represented by an exponential), if you take the optimal choice every time there is a choice (non-deterministic). Which is the same as verifying that a given solution is correct, by just following it's steps.

It's about finding the best representation of big numbers, not thinking of them.

Interestingly, I enjoy reading the articles more when I stumble upon them browsing their home page, rather than through a newsletter subscription. There's something to exploring vs. consuming.

But it makes sense that they want to optimise for newsletter subscribers.

That's the best feedback you can get if you want to be truly independent.

A similar read on the topic: https://www.oliverburkeman.com/time

That's not neccesarily the ideal for all people. But it should at least be a choice what to do with our time.

What a well-written intro!

But production per day must have slowed down since you always had less people working at once. It's an interesting way to increase utilization of industrial equipment -- you don't have to increase capacity, but can use the same things longer. Assuming you rotated 2 rest days within 7 day weeks that would mean you need 2/7 = 28% less workplaces for people (maybe ore smelters for example), which could be significant.

Here's a great example of one such study into life science research, which seems to be directly inspired by Progress Studies: https://guzey.com/how-life-sciences-actually-work/