People want to do X, so the metric is how much X can be done.
Everyone is over-complicating the explanation. The answer for "why are we fixating on this bad metric" is almost always the same pattern.
Broad audiences need simple metrics to talk about. If the metric itself requires nuance, it's hard to communicate and hard to reason about. It's easier to push the need for nuance from understanding the metric itself down the road to where the metric is applied, which allows everyone to ignore it in immediate conversation.
Set it on fire? I'm confused what your model of Google leadership is. Do you think they're being duped? Or controlled in some way? What is your theory of mind for Sundar's decision making process here. That he's committing fraud?
Because the obvious answer is that he has compelling financial data telling him that this $80B now will produce a positive return on investment in the future. But you of course seem to disagree.
The Noongar calendar from the south west of Western Australia is, of course, a much better fit to the local climate. We are just starting Djeran, with probably the best weather of the year, then it'll be Makuru, with by far the most rain and plenty of rainbows, and coldest temperatures. Djilba is when it just starts warming up again and at the end of Djilba is wildflower season which is probably the most beautiful time in the region. Then it's Kambarang around October November which is perfect temperature again, and then we are into Birak which is "first summer" and Bunuru "second summer". Obviously it's linked to food availability rather than the weather but it does fit far better than the British four seasons.
> I've had to spend week and a half battling Gmail daily email account limits sending batches of 500 emails just to notify people in her address book, receiving hundreds of responses. Her memorial was attended by hundreds of people.
I love this story, because I had the same experience. When my dad passed, I had the same 500 email limitation, and had to send out multiple waves of emails through Gmail. He was loved by so many people!
Yawing seems like it must be adventurous, the contagious part not so much.
Even the mention of a yawn can trigger it.
Perhaps we are almost always in a state of needing a yawn, but the trigger is seldom met, and seeing or hearing about it is enough to make our brain go "oh yeah I forgot about that".
Perhaps yawning is actually underdeveloped and an ideal human would yawn at regular intervals without any prompting.
Not so much if you think about if from security point of view of our ancestors. Those 1-2s if we talk about proper yaw you are defenseless and clueless, its actually pretty dangerous during say high speed drive on tightly packed highway (as in every single car in all lanes goes too fast to handle any major driver's mistake). But its great for equalizing pressure in ear via eustach tube without the need to block & blow your nose, something both mountaineers/paragliders and divers are well aware of.
Same goes for sneezing, actually that's even worse for driving, I literally don't see anything for a second at least. Sometimes can be blocked, sometimes not so much.
I know this guy from his videos over the years on hiking topics, like how to safely purify water with the minimum fuel and how to pack calorie efficient food.
His videos are incredibly well researched, very in-depth, and absolutely zero fluff. Very much feels like his cycle is to get intrigued by a topic, spend a year deep diving into everything that's published, extrapolate what he can from there, then summarize it in a 1 hr video.
It's because Signal has some unhealthy obsession with "security" and does not want to recipient of the communication to ever be able to export messages in plain text.
So if the top 10% is $2m net worth, then what's the 1%? Are we supposed to mentally extrapolate?
I hate when only part of the criteria are provided. Arrives like this need a table. If they don't have it, it calls into question whether they should be writing the article.
Everyone is over-complicating the explanation. The answer for "why are we fixating on this bad metric" is almost always the same pattern.
Broad audiences need simple metrics to talk about. If the metric itself requires nuance, it's hard to communicate and hard to reason about. It's easier to push the need for nuance from understanding the metric itself down the road to where the metric is applied, which allows everyone to ignore it in immediate conversation.
reply