In my experience routine trumps almost everything. And considering language learning, religion, accents, etc, routine probably trumps everything, period.
I've seen enough parents carting bored kids through supermarkets, while walking sullenly and silently, to know that some people aren't even trying.
The vast majority of kids will be just fine if you take them grocery shopping. Yes, exceptions exist. But "just take the kids shopping" is good advice for almost everyone.
I was actually pretty hyped for her at first, and she seemed to be doing a good job. It was only with time that I saw that she actually couldn't seem to hire good leaders, at all, and that she seemed to disdain the parts of the business that actually made money.
On the other hand - she did a great job at marketing herself. I wouldn't even call her trajectory "failing upwards", she made her moves intentionally and did it well. Fuck the rest of us though, I guess.
For personal correspondence? Yes. Most of what email was used for, for actual humans in their personal lives, has transitioned to SMS and other apps like WhatsApp, WeeChat, Signal, Discord, and that happened a decade ago.
You see that 90% of the daily volume is sludge and think this is a healthy communication network for humans?
I don’t think that’s true, words just tend to diminish in strength over time towards a muddy middle. Look at how basically anything gets labeled “fascist” these days.
For an older example consider “awesome” (literally: inspiring awe)
We’ve seen a lot of changes since 2016 including the rise of short form video, podcasts, audiobooks, music streaming, substack, even vinyl is up 3x (!)
> Anyone credible [who believes P=NP with some reasonable probability?
Do you accept
- Moshe Y. Vardi [1]
- Anil Nerode [2]
- Donald Knuth [3]
to be credible? Source for the statements that they consider P=NP to be possible: [4]
And you may include me in the list of credible P=NP believers because treat myself as a credible authority, i.e. when I ask myself whether something is right, I consider myself to be much more credible than some famous scientist. ;-)
(to be very clear: the previous paragraph is rather a clear statement against this kind of "hero worship" with respect to mathematical or scientific problems. One should consider the evidence by oneself instead of believing in P!=NP because lots of computer scientists claim all the time that this is likely true, or consider P=NP now to be possible just because some famous computer scientists consider it to be possible)
Note that, while Knuth believes that P = NP, he doesn't believe that it will have practical applications because the exponents and/or constants will be galactic.
> to be very clear: the previous paragraph is rather a clear statement against this kind of "hero worship" with respect to mathematical or scientific problems.
No, it's an irrational rejection of the notion of expertise. The experts are not "heroes", they are simply people who have done vastly more study than folks like you or me. e.g., if Magnus Carlsen looks at a complex chess position and says that white is winning, I will trust his judgment far more than my own.
> The main argument in favor of P ≠ NP is the total lack of fundamental progress in the area of exhaustive search. This is, in my opinion, a very weak argument. The space of algorithms is very large and we are only at the beginning of its exploration. — Moshe Y. Vardi
That sounds particularly relevant in how AI-assisted/driven mathematical research is changing the game, where previous assumptions based on human experience/effort are being overturned unexpectedly.
Predictions markets are terrible mechanisms for this, because they require imposing an arbitrary time limit at which point the prediction will pay out. IOW, even if you religiously believed P=NP, but you think it would take at least two years to prove it, you would vote against the prediction if the deadline were one year.
reply