So I'm reading it correctly, 39& of "the surge" was covered by traditional energy sources. Which still means use of traditional sources increased. Correct?
I guess the good news is, solar is available when demand is highest. Nonetheless, is it helping to solve a problem or is it serving more as an enabler of the status quo?
I don't write for a living, but I do consider communication / communicating a hobby of sorts. My observations - that perhaps you can confirm or refute - are:
- Most people don't communicate as thoroughly and complete - written and verbal - as they think they do. Very often there is what I call "assumptive communication". That is, sender's ambiguity that's resolved by the receiver making assumptions about what was REALLY meant. Often, filling in the blanks is easy to do - as it's done all the time - but not always. The resolution doesn't change the fact there was ambiguity at the root.
Next time you're communicating, listen carefully. Make note of how often the other person sends something that could be interpreted differently, how often you assume by using the default of "what they likely meant was..."
- That said, AI might not replace people like you. Or me? But it's an improvement for the majority of people. AI isn't perfect, hardly. But most people don't have the skills a/o willingness to communicate at a level AI can simulate. Improved communication is not easy. People generally want ease and comfort. AI is their answer. They believe you are replaceable because it replaces them and they assume they're good communicators. Classic Dunning-Kruger.
p.s. One of my fave comms' heuristics is from Frank Luntz*:
"It's not what you say, it's what they hear." (<< edit was changing to "say" from "said".)
One of the keys to improved comms is to embrace that clarify and completeness is the sole responsibility of the sender, not the receiver. Some people don't want to hear that, and be accountable, especially then assumption communication is a viable shortcut.
* Note: I'm not a fan of his politics, and perhaps he's not The Source of this heuristic, but read it first in his "Words That Work". The first chapter of "WTW" is evergreen comms gold.
LLMs are good at writing long pages of meaningless words. If you have a number of pages to turn in with your writing assignment and you've only written 3 sentences they will help you produce a low quality result that will pass the requirements.
Low-quality is relative. LLMs' low-quality is most people's above-average. The fact the copy - either way - is likely to go through some sort of copy-by-committee process makes the case for LLMs even stronger (i.e., why waste your time). Not always, but quite often.
I recently exited an LTR with someone who was in The Program and 6 - 9 yrs sober. The daily meetings routine was certainly help but, to your point, it never addressed the root problem. Tho to be fair, I’m not sure AA was designed for that as the spectrum of underlying problems is many.
In short, my key takeaway (as an outsider) is that with AA it’s helpful to get people sober and there’s value and comfort in that. Unfortunately that comfort has diminishing return. People (e.g., my ex) put in the time (in a comfortable sorta way), but then don’t put in the work (read: progress to address the root problem).
Finally, as an unrelated / random side note, my theory is that if you evaluated late in life alcoholics (read: 30 yo and up) most would test positive for NPD. In the hands of someone suffering from NPD, alcoholism is one hell of a weapon (e.g., manipulation, avoid accountability, etc). Also, within the context of The Program you will never be encouraged to seek help for your NPD.
>> overblown levels of self-importance, arrogance, and selfishness, as well as a lack of empathy for others.
Googled the term, but couldn't exactly see the connection. Fortunately, I currently only interact with a few people I consider alcoholics. AA definitely addressed the lack of empathy, at least.
Look deeper. There are two types of NPD. You found the typical / cliche version. Either way, NPD is ultimately a defense mechanism, which leads to a control mechanism. If you suffer from NPD then “alcoholic” is a great cover and a great weapon. In fact, “alcoholism” is known to correlate with those with NPD.
After multiple recommendations, recently I finally read “The Courage to be Disliked” which is a fictional representation of Alfred Adler’s view of psychology / human behavior.
Shifting from a Freudian paradigm to an Adlerian one has been massive. I’d rather be an accountable self-determining adult than an adult who attributes my flaws to traumas long gone.
If you’re serious about self-directed change, Adler is a good place to start.
Interesting fun fact: There was a time early in AA history where Bill W wanted to integrate psychedelics into The Program. But was overruled by others within the organization.
I learned about this from Pollan’s “How to Change Your Mind.” I’m sure it’s documented elsewhere.
Not since the Kardashians has a name - Elon Musk - been used for so many clickbait-y headlines.
Note: I not commenting on the relevance of the event / issue, only that putting Musk’s name in the headline is heavy-handed and adds zero journalistic value.
Is anyone that naive at this point? The majority of us have learned to realize that these things are not as simple as they are presented (either by conspiracy theorist, the media, a/o politicians.) Put another way, is anyone saying it was purely about oil?
We do know Trump likes playing offense. His favorite strategy? Put the defender on its heels and keep them there. That said, was the drugs issue a cover? Could be. But does any other drug exporting country want to take that chance?
> Put another way, is anyone saying it was purely about oil?
I think “popular” opinion is that this is just Iraq, again. So even if no one credible is saying it, I think a lot of people are saying it (I don’t have a link, but check any of the major Reddit threads, as a form of sentiment analysis).
And being clear, I’m not saying that does or doesn’t matter, or that social media sentiment matters. But a lot of (naive) people are buying the sold narrative.
Watch out, cocaine exporters of the world, I guess, unless you buy your way with preferential access to American companies? Because, truly, I’m sure Trump would be much happier to trade off a drugs war for a narrative of economic opportunity.
I mean, I understand that this is HN, and people here probably think that every country south of Texas is a drug exporting country full of Mexicans.
The main producers of drugs in South America are Colombia and Bolivia. Traditionally Colombia has the largest cartels.
I don't even think oil was the main goal of the US. There is no occupation of Venezuela, and not even a puppet dictator was put in place.
Maduro's vice president seems to be in power and there's no real indication that the Venezuelan government still in place will enact meaningful policy changes. Unless an actual occupation begins, the only thing I expect is that if the new government is too weakened the situation will spiral into a civil war of sorts.
I think that Trump just did something to take focus away from the whole Epstein deal for a bit.
> I think that Trump just did something to take focus away from the whole Epstein deal for a bit.
Trump is a highly emotional man driven by his feelings. Pete Hegseth is also a highly emotional man, openly driven by his feelings and notion of bully kind of masculinity. Vance is the most rational from the three, but still fairly on the emotional side.
And yet, people still insist on looking for rationalizations for what these do. Both with Trump and Hegseth, the feeling comes first. Something made them feel certain way or they want to feel certain way. Yes there are rational parts of motivation that combine with these.
But imo, the real truth is that ordering an attack and watching that attack happen makes them feel strong, powerful and like a manly man. These are intoxicating feelings. And all of that being real, real people dying, makes them much stronger then what one feels when playing computer game. They like this, on emotional level. And it is fair to guess they will continue doing this, because that is how guys addicted to own masculinity operate. They always need more.
> I think that Trump just did something to take focus away from the whole Epstein deal for a bit.
The sole reason? That’s over the top. Did it contribute to the feasibility? Of course it did. Aside from loving to play offense, Trump is a master at the distraction(s). He knows ppl are obsessed with him (read: haters are going to hate) and he uses that to his advantage.
But to say this was a cover for the whole Epstein show is overthinking it.
But sure, I’ll entertain your theory… where is all the cocaine coming from then? North? Canada? East? Europe? South East? Africa???
> But sure, I’ll entertain your theory… where is all the cocaine coming from then? North? Canada? East? Europe? South East? Africa???
Cocaine? Most of it is exported from Colombia and Bolivia if we are talking South America. Venezuela traditionally does not play a major role in international drug trafficking.
Other South American countries such as Paraguay and Brazil likely have a larger role than Venezuela.
> The sole reason? That’s over the top.
Trump has shown multiple times he has no problems in using state apparatus to his own benefit.
He is also an uber narcissist that is affected when the current news cycle is too negative.
Also, Trump has a particular modus operandi, one I actually find to be his main strength - He doesn't flinch of owning his transgressions. People accuse him of tax evasion? He just says that of course he does it.
The Epstein shit is one thing he can't own. What is he going to say? "yeah, I am a pedophile, every billionaire is"? This is the one thing he needs to keep deflecting.
I stated the comment thread saying there’s rarely a single reason. If you’ve come here to feed me CNN talking points and you’re expecting to change my mind, you should just move on. Thx
reply