The term refers to people who don't try to get into the art world in-group but still create interesting things, so "outsider" is an accurate and literal description of their status. However the in-group is uncomfortable with consciously engaging with this dynamic and the dysfunction it points to, so engages in a little double-think and invents more palatable justifications for using the term "outsider".
The idea of ignoring in-group games of meaning and status, instead creating works entirely from playful self-expression, is so alien it is best left outside.
From a little personal experimentation I've been surprisingly impressed. It helps winding down before bed after a hard day, but also helps to settle the mind for work, and doesn't interfere with concentration. Unlike other health fads (e.g. coconut oil, tumeric) it appears to have a quickly observable effect.
I theorize it may work by reducing or helping to manage stress. This could explain why it has raving supporters for a wide variety of real problems in distinct online communities, since stress is such an important factor in many kinds of physical and mental health issues. Admittedly it is hard to detect the placebo effect, but the indications so far are promising.
If it lives up to half of the promise of the online claims by people with significant problems, it is going to be huge. I'm wondering if there is an investment opportunity there somewhere, but don't know enough about that sort of thing.
It should be pointed out that there are a lot of bad or fraudulent products available, the market is immature and full of hype. But there are quality oils which taste good and work well. Also worth noting that much less is absorbed by drinking rather than than putting under the tongue.
There are also some bold claims flying around about it's effect on the Endocannabinoid system [1], and how improvements to that can improve many aspects of health and self-regulation. Whatever it does, I have a hunch that science is going to turn up some interesting results from looking into it.
I was curious about this since it seems unlikely SF can be so much more expensive than London. When I looked into it a couple of months ago, I found zone 1 London rents are a fair bit higher than equivalent apartments in SF if you compare by square-footage and quality. I speculate that the idea SF is much pricier than London is caused by significantly lower standards/expectations for London.
Well it's needless to speculate, the variation is because London has the public transportation infrastructure to keep demand in prime areas under control. Wanting a large high quality apartment in zone 1 of London is a trio of luxuries that most people will happily compromise on, and they have the ability to do so without it being a big issue.
As far as space is concerned, in my experience one of the Bay Area's biggest problems was inefficient use of space in every which way possible. Even beyond the lack of usage of vertical space, every room I had was pretty huge, double bed, desk, room to do just about any kind of yoga I could think of and still a ton of extra on top of that. I'd have happily traded half of it for a few hundred off my rent.
I'd need to know what metrics are being used for quality (e.g. I'd take an absolute slum of a single room over sharing in prime apartment).
Those numbers look quite wrong, I don't think they're comparing like-for-like.
For consumer goods it seems they're comparing a cheap UK supermarket to Whole Foods in SF, and for rents they must be ignoring square footage and/or using different definitions of city center to get those comparisons. I checked out rental prices in SF on a recent visit and found SF pretty good value compared to London.
Documentation has some great properties as something to work on in early days (so long as you aren't immediately firefighting).
* Documentation always sucks, no-one wants to do it, and everyone knows it has room for improvement. It shows you're willing to roll your sleeves up and do the less glamorous stuff.
* Working on it prompts you to ask simple questions so is a good way to get to know people on the team, and in the process learn the history of the team, why things are the way they are, and where the dark corners are.
* You're immediately creating value, rather than doing bugfixes no-one cares about or having meetings about things which are months away from fruition, and demonstrates you're here to make things better for everyone.
The idea that vegetarians/vegans need to be "counting amino acids" is a myth - any reasonable diet containing grains and legumes will give sufficient protein. For example rice and beans, chickpeas and bread, lentils and pasta. They don't even need to be consumed at the same time, the body doesn't care as long as grains and legumes are consumed at some point. Even better if you throw in some vegetables and nuts, you've got a balanced healthy diet without needing to count anything.
OKRs sound like a reasonable idea, but in my experience appear to be prohibitively difficult to implement successfully, imposing a considerable burden across the organization which isn't at all commensurate with the value they deliver.
I've seen them done in a few places, each time they tend to be delivered late and/or be constantly shifting, are constantly in conflict with important but unstated objectives, are often hard to measure and inevitably used to judge performance despite protestations to the contrary and so are subject to gaming, are bad for morale, and for all those downsides seem to have somewhat limited effects on output.
The primary benefits are aligning people, giving people clear goals to focus on, and giving people a justification for not doing unnecessary work. All of those things could be achieved at far lower implementation cost by ditching the key results and just establishing clear goals at the top and allowing them to semi-formally cascade with some kind of regular but very lightweight process.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Ironically, the incentives for economists to understand booms and busts are much weaker than the incentives not to understand.