I have developed an interest in health and longevity and I read this book. Full of many interesting ideas, but I was left a bit lost. I'm going to try his Occam mass gaining protocol, which is entirely taken from Doug McGuff 'Body by Science'.

I'm still a bit skeptical because I think that if something really works,sooner or later it will be adopted by the professional in the field.

But bodybuilder (even natural ones) are still trainig in the classical way...

Bodybuilders would tend to go for the 100% method, not the 80/20. Although reading through some responses to the book on bodybuilding forums is an entertaining way to spend an hour.

Just finished reading "A Random Walk down Wall Street" and I must confess I expected more consistency and less volatility in index funds returns.

Great eye-opening graph.

@MarkMc very good point

The premise of RWDWS is flawed by assuming that the secondary market in stocks is 'free'. This book was published in 1973, and after the 'analytic' schemes of the 1960s (and continuing in the 70s), it had obvious appeal. What it did not account for was government manipulation of financial markets through (de)regulation. For example, the Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the expansion of IRA coverage under ERTA in 1981 opened the flood gates to the securities markets and intensified the Ponzi-scheme nature of securities 'investing'. Prior to the publishing of RWDWS, it is reasonable to claim that the stock market was a arena for transferring risk, not pretending to be a savings institution. Something else to bear in mind is that there are little or no real alternatives to 'funds', and this exaggerates the influx of capital into them. The idealized view of stock and bond trading fails to fully account for the transaction costs, which are largely hidden, and this 'vigorish' makes it a losing game eventually. The costs associated with funds ('index' or otherwise) are also carefully and skillfully masked, but it is easier to market the diversification arguments. There's a reason that the 'financial industry' is so profitable: http://chartingtheeconomy.com/?p=665 It's an increasingly elaborate wealth transfer mechanism.

I really liked this post. I know it has to be taken with a grain of salt, but I found it a great reality check.

I also have a procastination and web-surfing ( hackernews :) ) problem with a job that doesn't motivate me.

A guy who got a PhD, a tenure and then a job at Google had the same problem. I feel a bit better.

Seeing articles like this one makes me feel shameful about my country.

In Italy until 25 you're just a university student.

Friendly advice from a fellow italian HNer: please stop whining and get some stuff done.

That shouldn't stop you from being an entrepreneur

You're right, on should not make up excuses.

But speaking about the future of a country, giving the young the opportunity they are given in silicon valley is surely a good thing.

No ways man, entrepreneurs don't look for opportunities to be mouth fed. They create them. It's more fun to create outside silicon valley and then take there and grow further. (IMO)

I played chess a lot in my teenage years and I was very good. Italian Champion under 12, under 18 and under 20, fide master with 2 international master norms.

Then I decided to quit. It was incredibly fun, but also a lot of work which is not going to pay off unless you become a very strong grandmaster. I'm still thinking what a loss it was not to spend that "teenage energy" into doing something more profitable.

But it was so fun that I'm thinking about a comeback :)

Everybody is suggesting some Austrian Economics books. I don't think it's a good idea to start with something which is not mainstream in the academic world.

I've read something about austrian economic, and it sounded good to me, but I know it's so easy to foolish a layman in any field with almost anything.

If most academics today at top univesities and most nobel prize are not followers of the austrian school there may be good reasons.

Better to start with the current state of the art and then read about less popular schools.

Popular in academia doesn't mean right, and at least one Austrian (Hayek) won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics; note that it's not a real Nobel and the committee's notorious practice of giving the award to so many people with radically and incompatibly different theories shows it's poor guidance about the truth (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economi... for a start).

The Austrians deserve respect if for no other reason being one of the "last men standing". The stagflation of the '70s should have put a stake in the heart of the neo-Keynesians, but the lure of "borrow, spend (and then get reelected)" is obviously too strong for most politicians (Keynes' advice that you pay back the borrowing in good items was at best naive, although upon rare occasion it has been followed).

Paying much attention to the officially popular in academia after watching the last 3 years of failure of their nostrums (and two decades in Japan) just doesn't strike me as a good use of the time of a beginner. Better to study a school like the Austrians that hasn't been falsified by the real world multiple times.

I find your comment ironic given your username.

At one time, bloodletting was mainstream in the medical world.

:)

Yes, it's quite ironic. I'm not saying Austrian Economics is wrong, I don't know enough to make such a claim.

I'm just saying that for a complete beginner it's better to start with what is believed to be correct by most professionals in the field.

Then of course it's great to study Austrian Economics.

I think that starting with the general consensus among professionals is the way to go in any subject. I know economics is heavily politcs influenced and politics can trump over truth, but still...

To think different first you have to know mainstream and if you see something wrong in it you can criticize.

Otherwise is just ignorance.

What kind of job did he had? It seems very good. Can I send them my cv :) ?

Well, for the academic insuccess of men I have an easy explanation: nurture.

Look at any movie, telefilm, sit-com ecc where the main character is a youg boy. He's always a good-looking,athletic, funny,street-smart guy. And at school sucks.

The smart guys are always nerds, losers.

The girls are always pretty, shy, serious and very good at school.

I think that for a school boy there is a lot of social pressure to be good in sports, get many girls and be the leader of your class. They can't afford to lose time studying.

For the "good" girls there is social pressure to be more serious and academically good.

I think IQ does measure something, but not what we generally consider as intelligence

IQ calculates processing speed, which is why it is timed. Many people can are good at problem solving, but what takes a normal person a week instead might take an IQ genius 5 minutes. That is all.

And a normal person can then train themselves to do that week in 5 minutes. It's like muscle mass: you're born with a genetic inclination to be weaker or stronger than average but the rest is up to you.

Well, she's young but living in Silicon Valley, with a rich venture capitalist father who can provide her money, advice and contacts in the business world.

You can't consider her a normal 18-year old.

I'm 27 but I live in Italy, with blue collars parents. I discovered the startup world and began thinking it can be done only recently.