This feels like a corollary to Cunningham's law.

"The best way to get someone to read something is to post a TL;DR that seems like it can't be right."

The effect goes away when the urge exceeded intolerable level.

Holding a shit has same effect: Defecatory urge increases cognitive control and intertemporal patience in healthy volunteers https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nmo.13600

I used Kagi for several months, I guess I'd at least recommend trying it out.

I stopped using it, though, and I can't honestly say I've missed it. It was nice not having sponsored results, I guess, but overall it didn't feel like a transformative experience.

Would you have $100k now or would you have sold it when it tripled to $3000 because that would've felt like a really good return already, though?

Yeah this is the story I tell myself to make me feel better. I may well have even more regret! Or thought I was an investment genius and invested loads more and then sold it at a bad time.

yeah as Warren Buffett once said: "Our favorite holding period is forever".

That is basically my strategy. Everything I buy is with the intent of selling in a couple of decades when retirement comes, at the earliest.

It's a great strategy as long as there's agreement between people and that the "S&P500" (paste your) means something :)

I guess if your business is to make urns, then your innovation ideas all center around urns. For Spotify, it's ... more questionable, but I can't imagine it was their idea.

But yeah, I agree with your sentiment, it's pretty weird.

Liquid Death is a water company, not an urn company… maybe, more accurately, a water marketing company.

If there is an urn partner is all this, I don’t see them highlighted at all.

Oh, wow, what a misguided assumption on my part then.

So, I guess it's more along the lines of "when your business is weirdly named water, you come up with weird products" which, actually, kinda makes more sense.

This would definitely make me want to rejoin tech.

Management would get us all dogs and they would get cats for themselves ... like blofeld from James bond ...

Not a problem for me... I'm a dog person.

But... what are they going to do with all that silicone?

> based purely on the genes they didn't have to work for

Modeling is notorious for its negative impact on models' health.

They absolutely work for it, and in one of the most toxic work environments.

There are people wired like Tao (or superstar athletes, supermodels, or other remarkable people) that don't achieve the same results.

Even among the people who have similar "luck" in that respect, some still stand out. The people we think of as elite performers aren't just elite relative to the 99% of us. They're also elite within the top 1% that makes up their field: they're dominant even among the people who should be their peers.

There are very very few people wired like Tao; how many child prodigies like that are there ? He seems to be one in a million but its pretty much impossible to assess IQ at those levels. Sure, it's not enough. YOu need the obsession for math, but lets not trivialize his intellectual ability - he's definitely not only top 1% that would just put him in the smartest 2-3 kids in his class. No, he was probably among the smartest 10-20 kids of his age group in the whole United States.

I was speaking generally, and wrote that people like him (not him specifically) are elite within the top 1%. So basically 1% of the 1%.

Not that I mean the percentages factually, more like an order of magnitude.

But my point is, in terms of "natural ability", I don't believe there is that much of a gap among top performers, but that things like work ethic and determination, and also some luck in environments, is what ends up setting them apart.

That's why I think they're worth praising: it's not just a spin of genetic roulette (unless one believes every single attribute about us is genetic, I guess).

> But my point is, in terms of "natural ability", I don't believe there is that much of a gap among top performers, but that things like work ethic and determination, and also some luck in environments, is what ends up setting them apart.

You could be right; I tend to disagree but its all speculation. My 2 cents is that the vast majority of researches/professors are motivated and driven people; you can't reach those levels if you don't know how to sit on your butt and concentrate. They all have good work ethic. I tend to think what separates Tao from the rest of the smart researchers is not that he works 15 hours a day while the rest work only 9 but rather his very very rare genius. But yeah, speculation of talent vs work ethic.

This has strong Chuck Norris facts vibes.

I've been gone from France too long. I've never heard "station de lavage" before.

Very awkward and formal. Anyone would call it lavage auto, lave-auto or simply lavage if the context is clear.

Maybe I'm too old or my family was weird. We called it "le carwash" with a beautifully French "carouache" pronunciation. But yeah, "lave-auto" sounds more familiar.

Honestly, If anyone asked me "T'as fait quoi?" I'd blurt out "J'ai amené ma voiture chez le lavage". Background: I stopped speaking french when I was ten and my family isn't native, but it feels more conversational than "station de lavage".