I hope people give up on this 1950's-era mythological obsession with trying to realize a cartoon's flying saucer pods because of the potential for energy waste/climate change, public hazards and property damage.
I tried FB in early ~2000's because I had a @stanford email, but after a coworker's wife started tagging people and editorializing randomly, it was clearly more of a liability than value. I had emptied details and most content but kept for some old photos, but finally migrated and purged it this year because it's basically a vehicle of surprise privacy monetization to make Wall St. happy. If a social media service instead were instead subscriber- and donation-supported, it wouldn't develop such perverse incentives to sell-out its users to stay afloat.
Facebook's accumulation of a pattern of making major, surprise changes that are mostly about benefiting money-making, directly or indirectly. Super popular but seemingly more and more terrible as time goes on.
Yeap. Emperor's new clothes / Not Invented Here / reinventing the wheel / new is "better" than old - churn / kitchen-sink design-by-committee (cough OpenSSL cough). This happens more and more. Instead of fixing existing infrastructure that has a well-established/proven history, throwing everything away and starting over like what came before never existed. And let's over-engineer it and add every possible feature that we'll never use! It's so new and broken, isn't it awesome!?!
> Instead of fixing existing infrastructure that has a well-established/proven history, throwing everything away and starting over like what came before never existed.
Isn't HTTP/2 just that, an attempt to fix existing infrastructure? I mean, HTTP/2 was a revision of HTTP/1.* that aimed to fix some problems such as the inability to address latency issues with basic techniques such as pipelining and multiplexing requests.
Could've used this 30 years ago when I was forcibly-bused across town to a "magnet" school 1.5 hours in each direction (3 hours of busing total). Getting up a 4:45 am and not getting home until after 6 pm as a pre-teen sucked. The big thing is the route they took was very circuitous and served both many stops and schools.
Certainly, there's too much magical thinking, but what the heck is "hypersane?" Is it an absence of conspiracy theories, foolish beliefs, and word-salad? Maybe giving too much attention to the histrionic, the unreasonable and the crazies is part of the problem.
Hypersanity isn't well defined but it implies 'saner than normal'. Now sanity has many aspects to it in how it is defined but it clearly isn't meant in a pure 'normative' sense. Viewing infections as caused by germs instead of miasma or evil spirits may be reacted to negatively but it is still sane.
One way to define it would be lacking 'common madness' but even that is arguably a reference problem. There isn't a need for a word for 'not a believer in alchemy'. Defining it is a problem since practically by definition we wouldn't know that it was insane and it wouldn't be recognized as such. If you were to point out said issues there would also likely be push-back and resistance.
I have noticed from being on the autistic spectrum that interviewing protocols and expectations are truly insane - like finding people more trustworthy when they fake emotional expression on demand more effectively and mimic their manners of speech seemingly authentically - when it isn't a job skill. This may be too subjective to 'truly count' and I admit to not understanding people well enough to know for sure.
As mentioned earlier sanity is multifaceted with goals and how to pursue them as aspects. Barring a far worse alternative suicide isn't a rational goal but trying to pursue it with a deadly weapon makes more sense than attempting it by painting X's over your eyes.
I realise the significance of your comment about the histrionic now. Rather than ideas, the premise and the article both focus on this ideal of the person.
I would find a better (defensible) business model that's better than a restaurant that anyone can open. ER's have zero intellectual property and anyone can start such a business for little investment. Do something else (hard/er/expensive/tedious for most people) that lends itself to greater monopolization by you, and that's profitable. (Build something defensible and profitable that customers love.)
Books are completely indefensible. There are billions of the things, and new ones get written all the time. I made some money. I was and am very happy to have written books.
Is writing books a good business? Perhaps not, if viewed through the “The world is divided into unicorns and NOOPs” lens. But I don’t look at the world through that lens.
See also: Making music, opening a social pub, running a day care, organizing festivals or conferences...
