My guess is running a startup is like running a marathon. The idea of it is great to many people, but as people start to train they realize all the work it takes and drop out. People get into things without fully understanding it all the time. The few that really love it or enjoy the process makes it to the starting line.
Totally agree. The number one rule of (most) startups is that everything takes infinitely longer than you would imagine. And then, even longer than that still...
Understanding everything before you get into it is overrated. Belief is a necessary requirement to move the world forward. And that in itself requires some naivety. Otherwise those people who can actually see it through wouldn't even start - most of them didn't "understand" it before they started.
The unequal distribution is more related to the power law (80/20 rule) than each other. Money definitely helps, but if it had high correlation, Software Engineers would be viewed as rock stars, instead of the nerds we are lol
I would argue we live in an era with the most access to everything you listed out ever. There are more programs to help the poor than any other period in history. The internet and YouTube give you access to the world's knowledge. You can get a membership to Planet Fitness for $10/month.
Also, I realize all of this is great, but the opposite side is true too. We also live in an era with the most amount of obstacles and vices people can fall into. Yes, there are amazing lectures on YouTube, but there are also millions of addicting cute cat videos.
I state all this to say depression and improving people lives is not as easy as providing them access. They need to want to put in the work themselves.
I agree that people do need to put the effort in themselves. I just think that they put the effort in when they have breathing space and hope. If people can’t see a way out of their situation then they won’t put any effort in, they’ve become hopeless and therefore depressed. You could argue that the disease in that case may be one of perception, and that you need to enrich the person’s life by opening up to new possibilities and ways of perceiving the world. But you can also build more visible progression paths into the system so people never feel that way in the first place and can always see a route out if they choose to take it.
I’d also argue that there are some social programs but:
- we’re drowning in information overload so people don’t necessarily know how to access them. For example, a lot of the poorest households in the Uk did not claim the money they were entitled to from the government for energy payments this winter.
- We don’t really have policies that are addressing the root causes of poverty which are unaffordable housing, unaffordable and/or poor quality education and low wages.
I have a motto, “It’s really hard to be depressed if you eat, sleep, and exercise well.” Whenever I’m struggling, I drop everything (within reason) and focus all my effort in those 3 areas. When I do that, it doesn’t take long to have the energy and clarity to deal with whatever other problems I may have in my life.
He proposes that depressed patients work first on their bodies (eat, exercise), relationship (do not retreat from humanity. Don't be alone) and mind (diary, reflection).
That would give them back "life force" to begin working on themselves.
Once you are depressed it's kinda hard to do anything. I usually tell myself that this is just temporary so don't fall into the negative trap. Once the mood improves I can start working on sleep eat and exercise. I thought about going to see therapy but 1) My depression doesn't hit too often and too hard; 2) Getting tired of long wait in medical system; 3) Not sure about employment but I need insurance for such therapy.
When you're really depressed, it's a spiral that is hard to break from. Sometimes it is almost impossible to do something like exercise. Eating can be a retreat for a moment so often you eat what you shouldn't as well.
I don't know if achieve is the right word, but two months ago. I decided to do one healthy habit every day. It could be meditating, working out, or spending time with friends. I believe I have only missed 1 or 2 days so far. It feels good.
I think as a society we need to admit different race, in general, have different culture, values, and strengths. I don't even think that's a radical idea, but somehow it is. I have been watching this football competition youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrbljwLslYI
The fun and athleticism you see is awe-inspiring, but I haven't seen a single Asian person competing or even at the event. My guess is a math competition would look a lot different.
It's not racial, it's cultural, socio-economic, and historical. Things like redlining, jim crow, GI Bill (lack-there-of for black people after WW2) all directly lead to the huge educational/economic inequality we see today. That said, it's clearly not racial based, because you can take a look at various non-American black populations and see big differences in educational levels and cultural values. For example, Nigerian immigrants (both first and second gen) are vastly more educated than the average American. I haven't dug too deep into sources but here's a random article I found https://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-m... where they cite census data (too lazy to verify but one could do that if interested).
> For example, Nigerian immigrants (both first and second gen) are vastly more educated than the average American
This is not a good example because the immigration process itself is highly selective. For the most part, only best and brightest from Nigeria are able to come to the US. Try comparing the average black American to the average Nigerian in Nigeria instead.
I thought that was interesting too. I mean, the reason Nigerians do so much better in the US than everyone else is because, of all the "black" population groups, the immigration process is most strict on Nigerians. There is a reason it is more strict on Nigerians than Barbadians, or Bahamians, or Kenyans. And that reason is not because Nigerians are smarter.
You compare the average Nigerian in Nigeria to the average Kenyan in Kenya, or Jamaican in Jamaica, or black American in the US, and you'll see an entirely different story.
There is something to these racial differences, and it can't be explained away by, "Well, if i only consider the top 0.01% of whatever group then they can do as well as the run of the mill 25 percentile Asian!"
Now I will concede that "mixed" kids outperforming all other non Asians was a surprise. But other than that one positive surprise, all this information is surprising in the other direction. Asians outperform at a level that is undeniable. No one is even in their league. Heck, no other racial grouping even catches the "mixed" kids. And unless I'm reading that data wrong, at the top, Asians are doing 3 times better even than the "mixed" kids. And 5 to 25 times better than any group other than the "mixed" kids.
We have to up our education game, because that is pathetic if this data is factual. (And I have seen no reason presented in these comments to believe it is not.)
> That said, it's clearly not racial based, because you can take a look at various non-American black populations and see big differences in educational levels and cultural values.
There are big differences in educational levels and cultural views within every racial group. Is that relevant to the question of whether there are significant mean differences between racial groups on the population level?
Huh? Sensible racial grouping is trivial. The overwhelming majority of people on earth fall neatly into racial cateogies of white (European), black (African), Native American (American Indian), or Pacific Islander. Sure, the edges are fuzzy, (and good luck with the whole race/ethnicity thing vis-a-vis hispanics) but to pretend that makes it difficult to measuring population-level averages is just silly.
It's much easier to offer up a flippant rhetorical parry than to actually make an argument. Cognitive dissonance and all that.
Here's a question: How is it that we're able to measure the degree to which various racial minorities are underrepresented in congress, in colleges, in industry and in Emmy Award nominations? How is it that we're able to measure racial disparities in income, in COVID exposure, in medical outcomes and in every other conceivable context, if race is such a tricky concept to nail down?
Well, given that track and field is brutally dominated not just by black Africans/Caribbean Islanders, but that they tend to come from only a handful of ethnic groups, I tend to think that direct race has at least some influence.
Most body builders intuitively understand that being black is an advantage in building muscle.
It is racial in the sense that's the way people have been grouping things. Else we wouldn't even have this conversation. There would be no inequality of races because the grouping wouldn't exist in the first place.
I hesitate, to think obstacles are the reason why things are the way they are. Again, going back to sports. Black people faced all the same obstacles in the sport arena and still came out on top. Also, Asian people also faced discrimination too. Don't forget concentration camps.
And yes, all those other things you mention cultural, socio-economic, and historical are true too. Even within the Asian "grouping" there are groups that don't live up to the "stereotypical" standard of success. John Oliver talked about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29lXsOYBaow
This is such a bad-faith comment and so dog-whistly that I feel wrong for even engaging with it, but I have to.
> Black people faced all the same obstacles in the sports arena?
No, African-Americans endured physical slavery for hundreds of years, leading to a disposition for physical work. Africans also come from a continent with the hottest average temperature, and in general are more athletically inclined.
And let's look past even that for a moment - why do you think some of the best players in the NBA are starting to come from Eastern Europe? Hmm, I wonder, could it have anything to do with the massive amount of investment into training and player facilities that is pouring into the area? Perhaps we could apply that analogy to academics as well, and realize the INCREDIBLY obvious fact that Asians tend to perform well because our parents have money to push us, we grow up in a culture surrounded by other kids who push us to do better, and we have _privilege_.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "race". It is an entirely privilege-driven issue (do you have resources, or do you not?), and if you still fail to see that, then you're most likely just letting your intrinsic bias/racism drive your thought process.
I agree, I'm simplifying the issue. But I feel like you're agreeing with me. You stated all the reason why African-Americans history and culture is different.
If it has nothing to do with "race" let's stop talking about race.
> different race, in general, have different culture, values, and strengths
The coarse divisions that we call "race" don't help much here, either - there's a lot of variance between different groups of asians as well as different groups of whites (think of how different italians are from irish). The way we're lumped together is actually very arbitrary (and changes depending on how the lumpers are trying to score political points).
Neither athletic nor scholastic performance are objective measures. Sports are contests of arbitrary skills, that on the highest level require time intensive and expensive commitment since basically childhood, and whatever method you choose to measure scholastic performance with it's never going to be free of class/geographic/cultural factors.
Exactly. I've made this point before in this forum, but there's no reason at all to believe that the distribution of interests, values, and strengths between different ethnic and cultural groups should be identical. The classical liberal idea that "all men are created equal" is a beautiful one, and should not be perverted to mean that everyone is literally equal to each other in every respect.
>The classical liberal idea that "all men are created equal" is a beautiful one
Is it even really "classical liberal"? I'm fairly certain it's religious in nature. If the sky daddy made us all 6,000 years ago then we are in fact all the same.
The problem arrises when science discovers that humans co-evolved over millions of years and that we are a hybrid of multiple species _with no single common ancestor_. Even "modern" humans have had geographic isolation for tens of thousands of years in very different climates/selective pressures.
Nigerian immigrants to the US have significant rate of achievement compared to African American and they both would be classified under the "same race". I think "cultural" groupings would serve better.
There are traits individuals can have, some of which are immutable, and some of which correlate with what we call "race". But race itself is, even taking the most benign meaning possible, at best a surrogate.
The sooner we get rid of that awful meme the better.
I agree it isn't "race." However, there are groups of people who have similar characteristics where it might be beneficial to look at the group as a whole not just individuals. For example, it may be that a certain group of people, with a common background and in a particular geography have specific notions about whether they trust that education will work or that health care will be honest. It might help to look at those communities and have discussions about what can be done for them at large. I think it would be very difficult to only look at individuals. Obviously, we then get the problem of group labels and stereotypes being used for malicious purposes...
> white people are the only ones who think this way
Not really - Asians are pretty quick to point out that lumping Japanese immigrants in with Indian immigrants makes for a pretty meaningless classification.
Are you from the UK by chance? That's the only place I've been that considers Indians "Asian". I've also never heard any of my Indian-American friends call themselves Asian, they're very proudly (sometimes obnoxiously so) "Indian".
And of course the Philippines, Japan, China, Korea etc all have very different cultures/customs. However in my experience at a fortune 500 my Korean and Filipino coworkers still organize an "Asian Culture Club", in fact one of them is the president of an Asian advocacy group that interacts with the city for events around Asian American And Pacific Islander Heritage Month.
All that's fine, I'm not bashing anyone, just saying that from what I've seen it's seemingly only white people who are averse to any kind of ethnic organization.
Isn't it true though that you can tell someone's race by their genome, skeletal structure, and other physical traits apart from skin color? Additionally, is it not also the case that race is generally agreed to result from geographic isolation, and that if that persisted long enough, speciation might occur?
Not stating this is reality. I'm genuinely curious what the science is on this.
No, unless with "race" you mean something other than the ordinary meaning of the word. You can find those differences and draw lines between populations, but they don't overlap very well with the folk interpretation of race.
The traditional concept of race (i.e. the one where "white", "black", "asian" and so on are well-defined terms) is scientifically untenable (fact) and socially harmful (opinion).
There are some narrow use-cases where the concept can be fruitfully applied. For example, some diseases are correlated with genetic characteristics themselves correlated with race. If you are a physician making a diagnosis, the patient's race is usually very apparent; you can and should make use of that information. But that's just keeping the English friar happy, correlation does not imply causation.
Yes, plastic MIGHT be making us obese. But, we definitely know high caloric intake and sedentary lifestyle makes us obese. I don't understand why obesity is such a mystery. People are creatures of path of the least resistance. Developed countries have highly dense caloric food and people are inactive most of the day due to cars and office jobs.
Poorer people are more obese is only true in richer countries or in countries where the poor doesn’t have to starve. As for why poor people are more obese in well-off countries. Again, it’s the path of least resistance. Poor people are generally less educated and less likely to think long term. It's easier to eat junk food than to put in the time and effort to make a well balance meal.
Btw, I'm not blaming the poor, being poor is hard. I grew up under the poverty line. Overcoming poverty is a huge task and more should be done.
Availability of cheap crap is much higher in more developed/high GDP countries I suppose.
In extremis, if you only eat what you can grow, rear, and trade for, then you're not eating breakfast ~cereal~ sugar, ready meals, crisps, etc.
It's a bit tangential, but this is similar to how such a lifestyle isn't even cheaper - it's not the only shopping those people can afford - most of my meals probably cost less, because I take an interest in cooking and eating (i.e. I'm buying vegetables not ready meals) but that doesn't mean there's always (or even that often really, especially amortised over all uses) an out-of-reach expensive ingredient.
Go to the dollar store and look at the food there. Everything has sugar in it.(It's also not a great deal due to portion size, but if you don't have much money it's an easy way to get variety). The cheaper the food, the more likely there are cheap sugars meant to made it more palatable
Or look at restaurant/fast food-- the healthier options are the 'premium' options. But if you've got a few buck and want to feed a whole family, a bunch of burgers is still reasonably priced for someone low income
I think you're right, but the the article says: "In the US, roughly 40% of today’s high school students were overweight by the time they started high school." Not sure what the source is.
And for me I don’t understand why people think obesity is such a simple problem?
Every single other thing in our body is complex and has chains and chains of reactions and impacts. Why is obesity the single one where the answer is “obvious”?
Anyway I agree that we should change how we design our cities, etc to deal with our sedentary lifestyle.
I mean, yes. We have to do the redesign for a multitude of reasons. Including the impacts our current cities have for scalability of various services and growth. Also how it’s fucking our response to climate change.
If you don't understand the problem they are solving, you're still very green in the field. Try to implement a basic data bind input field and display the value in the DOM with react vs with just "vanilla js". You'll see the difference right away.
