AnarchistArtificer

There's already decent scholarship in this area. One such book is the recent "The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want", by Emily Bender and Alex Hanna. I haven't read it yet, but I've heard good things about it and it's high on my reading list.

You should almost certainly go to a tailor. It makes a world of difference if "professional" is your goal. It can be tricky to find a good one, but when you do, it's incredible. It can be surprisingly cheap too (although building a wardrobe that has high quality piece that are worth tailoring can be quite expensive. This is best done gradually)

I think that this is especially true if you're on the larger side, because a greater amount of body mass means that qualitative differences in where we store that mass will be more apparent.

Something I liked about going to a tailor is I could show them clothes that I liked versus ones I didn't (or explain what had been bothering me about certain clothes). They were able to suggest alternatives.

Good recommendation. I tend to be most comfortable rolling up sleeves to my forearm, but I wonder whether this might also help.

Do you have a favourite pair of cufflinks?

Despite not owning one, I really like the Steam Deck because I suspect it has made my transition to Linux far smoother (for a while, I dual booted because I was fearful that gaming on Linux would be difficult.)

I don't know too much about this area, but I do know that this kind of task involves a bunch of complex processing in the brain. The more "Mechanical" aspects of vision could be described as visual acuity (sharpness of vision). However, gauging whether something is wonky would be a visual discrimination task, which involves more work by the brain. It's an area in which one's skill can be improved through learning, and some occupations have a lower discrimination threshold (I e. They can detect smaller differences).

Thanks for sharing this. I'd heard of this before, but being reminded of it bolstered my spirits a little.

Damn, that's pretty dangerous, right?

I don't think we're awful as a whole. To some extent, I need to believe this, in order to avoid breaking down and killing myself. However, I do think it counts for something that there are so many people who want humans to be better, and are doing what they can. I think that resigning oneself to humans being awful will lead to a world with more awfulness.

That was wonderful, thank you for sharing. When it's done well, I really enjoy this style of prose.

This sounds like a good interview approach. In the sense that the interview is also an opportunity for the interviewee to evaluate their prospective employer, this would be a green flag for me.

"I'm looking for a role where I can make good use of the skills I bring to the table" (because implicitly, the 299 places that didn't email back don't have a role where you can fit in and be useful (even if that's only true in the sense that they didn't hire you so therefore you can't contribute there))

Apparently the average radius of the Earth at its equator is 6,378,000m. This means that in a day, someone sitting on a couch at the equator would travel (2 * \pi * 6378,000)m, which equals 40053840m. There are around 86,400 seconds in a day, so the equatorial couch sitter travels at 464m/s (rounded to 3s.f). That's 1040mph.

I think the average walking speed is 3pmh. Amusingly, the mph figure I calculated above is 1037 if rounded to 4s.f. rather than 3, so the speed difference between the walker and a couch sitter is literally a rounding error.

The conclusion here is something that everyone here already knew before I wrote this comment: it's hard to make any sense of individual human health progress if we try to think of it on a planetary scale.