>Because our mind evolved as a tool for survival of our self which is to say as a tool for survival of that which may pass on the genes which create said mind.
It would be nice if Kagi Small Web would have an ActivityPub interface so that the most appreciated sites of a day could be added to a timeline on mastodon or lemmy.
>Returning Indian and Chinese engineers and scientists means nothing if there isn't tens of billions waiting for them in funding when they get home.
China has a huge trade surplus and they are starting to trade in the BRICS currency. Why shouldn't there be billions? Once the investments pay off, why shouldn't there be even billions more?
>150 years ago their lifestyle might have made sense, but less so today where they could get better jobs if they had a better education and they could also get support from society if needed.
Today, there are expats and mobile internet. Doesn't the world change? With automated production processes, workers won't be needed locally. Like many pensioners today, society could change and the majority could travel depending on seasons.
In other words, isn't the sedentary population missing out on receiving advice from hundreds of years of traveling? If the traveling children lack opportunities, shouldn't we find a way to offer those opportunities because sooner or later, many children will be traveling?
But that would be digital nomads, or van life. That is hip, isn't it? And alos totally legal, those people don't steal or cause problems.
Unless, of course, they do. Working without proper visas is illegal and tax fraud, for example. But those a white collar crimes, so obviously it is less bad. /s
Also, defining something as <X> doesn't necessarily cause it to be that, but with adequate ~training[1] (basically, cultural beliefs and behavioral norms) it can make it appear as such. This phenomenon surrounds us constantly, and is filtered out from our experience.
E.g. if there were a global registry of credit dependencies and ownership, at least for system relevant companies, we should know what is going to happen.
But what is the worst that could happen? If companies fold, ownership will be transferred. As long as the companies are profitable, their business will continue.
If the assets are worth 10 but the debt is 100, creditors will not have anything of value transferred, and will have to write down a loss.
This could be a small impact or a big one.
If you are a person who was relying on those assets for income for your retirement this might mean you no longer have enough to live by. If you are a company you might in turn be forced to fold. If you're a stablecoin that bought evergrande bonds you might be forced to show you have no baking of your emissions..
That will mean companies won't have any privacy at all (all info will need to be public) and essentially centralize them into a single "massive" world company. It didn't work back then (it's similar to communism in that sense) and I don't think it'll work now (it's every bureaucrat wet dream).
How does public knowledge centralize the control of the companies? Owners would still be in control and there still would be laws prohibiting collusion between companies.
What's the worst that can happen? It's all just numbers on papers or memory. When Evergrande folds, others will pick up the opportunity.
Why should the government and the non-investors pay for government agencies that enforce regulations? If investors cannot handle due diligence, let them pay private agencies to secure their investments.
> In general, economic crisis, unemployment rate and other macroeconomic measures are associated with increased risk of suicidal behavior at the aggregated level.
Worst that can happen? If banks have used peoples' savings to purchase Evergrande debt or anything related then the banks may not get repaid which would result in the banks losing peoples' money leading to people spending less money resulting in a recession or depression.
Instead of default the bad debt and a recession, what alternative is there? Prop it up a little longer? Default on everything, go to CBDC, and issue everyone monthly CBDC tokens to buy food?
If China descends into chaos, it could be alot worse than the Great depression, since so much of the world depends on China, and since they have a crazy arsenal of weapons.
Yes, the nazis were a fringe political part polling below 3% before 1929. The Weimar republic was relatively stable and it seemed that the biggest economical issues were already behind..
Note taking apps can make us smarter when note taking apps allow people to cooperate.
It can already happen on Twitter that people complete each other's thoughts but the Twitter timeline is not the medium to publish half-finished thoughts that could tarnish one's reputation.
Still, there is some joined thinking. HN shows that it's fun to pool notes on poplar topics. The difficulty lies in managing the attention on notes. Popularity voting doesn't work to navigate note collections.
The headline is about our smartness, but it doesn't mean us as a group. There is no joined thinking in his note-taking apps.
He is right when he talks about his isolated thinking:
>But the original promise of Roam — that it would improve my thinking by helping me to build a knowledge base and discover new ideas — fizzled completely
Where should new ideas arise in old notes when nobody sees them? Old notes just remind us that something is important. Revisiting them later, with new connections from new memories, it's possible to have new insights.
There is an easier way to access new memories: When notes are published, other brains, with many more, and different memories, can find solutions or advancements.
Historically, scientists only publish polished results, apart from exceptions like Hilbert's problems. Even those were remarkable problems. Who would dare to publish their minor nuisances or shallow observations (unless they come with a nice picture)?
The author hopes that AI can find answers. Why should we wait for AI when there are already intelligent humans? The problem lies in managing access to our thoughts. We don't want to allow everybody to see each of our notes.
>One interpretation of these events is that the software failed: that journaling and souped-up links simply don’t have the power some of us once hoped they did.
>In short: it is probably a mistake, in the end, to ask software to improve our thinking.
Software could improve our joined thinking. We need an acceptable format to publish our notes.
Said mind is not only created by the genes.