howrar

We're not at a point yet where this is a concern, so still on the brainstorming phase of how to do this.

I think the main concern I have is the addictive side of the internet that's enabled by their recommendation systems and infinite scrolling, so that's what I would try to block. For example, allow free reign on YouTube, but you have to specifically search for what you want to see.

There's also the question of privacy, and whether we should be keeping track of and checking their browsing histories. I'm currently leaning towards yes, while also making sure that they're aware of what we're doing. There's value in letting them make their own mistakes and learning from them, but that only applies to things that they can learn and easily recover from.

Immediately afterwards? I've been told to wait at least half an hour after eating, or else brushing will have a negative effect on your teeth.

Focus on Dilution, Not Restriction

This is probably the key takeaway for most people. If you want to decrease your Calorie intake, then eat food that is more satiating per Calorie. A bunch of those named diets are based on this idea (e.g. Keto / low-carb, Paleo, Mediterranean)

That said, everyone's mind and bodies are different. You'll have to experiment and figure out what works for you. Some people do respond well to things like time-restriction based diets, or straight up Calories counting.

We have one for my city centered around socializing and meeting people. We haven't been getting any of the kinds of problems that everyone else here have faced.

I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, there are clear problems with the electoral college situation right now, but on the other hand, getting rid of it means that the tyranny of the majority will become a bigger problem. It's unclear to me which is worse or how we can fix the latter.

Hmmmm... A quick pickled depression you say

Still, some are closer to the source of these ideas than others, think about awards attributed to individuals for example.

This is where the researchers would disagree with you. I don't know if you've ever been involved in research (or startups). There's a common saying that ideas are a dime a dozen. It's much more so the work you do that's important, not the idea itself.

singers, actors, politicians, or youtubers

Notice how being in the spotlight is an important aspect of all the professions you've listed. That naturally selects for people who are comfortable with or enjoy being on camera and are good at that kind of live performance. Similarly, science selects for people who are good at doing science. Sometimes, there's an overlap, but it's not that common.

If you're interested in interviews with prominent scientists, Lex Fridman does quite a few of those. But if you want more people to do this, you'll have to contend with the fact that most scientists simply have no interest in being on camera and probably never developed the skills needed for it.

We likely don't know much about the researchers of modern technology because they're often created by a huge team of hundreds of people. There's no single person responsible for the bulk of the work. In the case of ChatGPT and the line of work leading up to it, it was very much also the researchers' choice as well to not name a specific person as being the main contributor. For example, the transformer paper had all the author names shuffled so the credit doesn't all end up with one person.

Same. I keep thinking back to my time TAing for an intro programming course and getting students who just add random braces until their code compiles. That's me right now with Rust pointers.

As a developer? You're not going to get very far if you refuse to write websites for the world's current most popular browser.

A person who bases their decisions on scientific thinking would determine killing is bad

Science does not produce value judgements.

I think the idea is that if you create the demand for hydrogen, then there will be more incentive to produce cheap and environmentally friendly hydrogen.