On a rooted phone you can install acc which lets you set a maximum percentage to charge to, percentage at which the phone shuts down, max charging current and voltage, max charging temperature, etc.
That's the third type actually. But for some reason GP decided to qualify each type as either smart or dumb. Here's put better: there's 3 types of people: those who resist hype, those who profit off of it, and those who enjoy it.
Exactly, and since it's good to profit, and it's good to have fun, surely it's the smart people who are doing that, and the dumb people who are resisting.
I certainly feel dumb for dismissing crypto as only an effective store of value with some minor improvements over the status quo (and some downsides) without considering the implications.
I imagine that the people who profit off of it enjoy it too, though? So perhaps we have a “hype enjoyers” superset that includes “profiteers” and “suckers”, but then we need “neutrals” or something to describe those who enjoy it without making or losing money. And then from there …
My guess would be that branch misprediction does have an impact on interpreted language, but much less. If bytecode instructions take on average 20 CPU cycles to execute, and the branch misprediction penalty is 50 CPU cycles, the relative cost of a misprediction is much smaller than in compiled code.
12 000 words is ~1h30 of talking non stop. These averages seem pretty high to me... on a median day I probably speak about 50 words, and my average must be around 1000.
However, the average number of words I listen to is several times higher. It would be interesting to do such a study, with a similar methodology: do women listen more than men?
50 words is strikingly low. You must lead an unusually quiet life, or perhaps you rely more on written communication. Do you work? If so, do you work mostly alone, or collaborate with others through text? I'm genuinely curious... it's such a surprisingly small number!
First, I live alone. Then, work mostly involves written communication especially when remote, and on the days I'm at the office communication is generally limited to saying hi and very small amount of small talk. Most agile meetings are useless to me so I don't say a word. Other that work interactions I basically greet and thank the cashier and bus driver.
And generally I just find it more polite to shut up and listen than talk about stuff people aren't interested in, which happens to be the majority of what I'm interested in.
Sure the median might be 50 but it's kind of anecdotally low. For example a typical week might be: 0, 10, 50, 50, 500, 2000, 5000. So the median might also be 500 under slightly different circumstances.
A lot of people just talk a lot. Even when she's alone, I'm near someone who probably talk on the phone 1-2 hours a day. That's in addition to all of the work and actual physical socializing.
Also, families talk a lot, and many couples are fairly chatty.
I meant to comment on you being on the low end of the range, but after typing that all I can think about is how hard it is to properly isolate variables when doing this study. Quite a lot to control for!
I don't love the way they came up with these numbers. Although it's possible I'm being overly skeptical.
The recording device turns on randomly and captures bursts and then a computer counts how many words were spoken and they estimate the total days count based on that. It amounts to about an hour of recording per day spread out over 17 hours.
I cant see the full paper but from what I can see they don't describe identifying who the speaker is in each recording, so does that mean any word the microphone picks up is attributed to the wearer?
With 5,258 hours or 657 workdays worth of recordings I wouldn't be surprised if they cut this corner given that even at $15/hour they would be spending more than $80k on just the transcription.
So, is it possible falling asleep with the tv on skews the results?
What about being a generally quiet person and living with a yapper?
And more abstractly, is asking "Do you want fries with that" making conversation or are they just doing their job? Should that really count? (no shade, I just don't think our customer service voice is a reflection of our true self)
Seems like it could be explained by different types of work being offered to women vs. men. People hiring for service positions may favour women, and for technical positions may favour men. One of these types of position tends to involve more talking
I have spent years of my working life interacting almost solely through text and email, so this is believable to me.
If you live and work at home alone and don't order out food or socialize it is entirely possible to go days without speaking a word.
I used to spend entire summers alone as a child walking the forest in my backyard with my dog. I would speak to my parents at dinner but most of my world was quiet.
Speaking in person was very difficult for me as college student and something that I know I will never master because of the lack of verbal communication in my youth.
It's obviously not super common, but it is relatable to me that some people do live this way.
I imagine a lot days they say very little, then maybe they go out with friends or have a presentation or something and speak 10000+ words. My life is pretty similar.
Why is that surprising? Some people have more anxiety talking in person compared to being able to spend time crafting exactly what they want to say, some people might not live with other people or have any strong reason to go out to where other people are frequently...it seems like there could be so many potential reasons for this that aren't that weird, and I'm someone who's the opposite and probably averages twice that many words per minute when talking with anyone (due to a lifelong habit of talking much faster than I probably need to and often finding it easier to think though things out loud, which could be related to the first thing).
I don't talk due to disinterest in "people" things. I can say thousands of words if you project a stereotype in astronomy, physics, medieval/fantasy warfare, and so on. But most people don't do that, so all they hear is hi and mhmm/yes/no. Politeness apart, couldn't care less how's the day going, who seen whom and other people stuff.
Also I know/knew enough women who were mostly silent both in small and large groups (don't know the reason though).
I don't think it's gender-specific per se, but in my personal, opinionated experience the "women talk more" effect is due to the perceived uselessness of the talks that the most talkative of them have. When people talk about the topics you're not interested in, you think "they can't shut up can they" much more than when you're interested or neutral.
Yeah, I don't disagree with you that topic is super important, and in my experience at least, gender doesn't really seem to have any impact on the average amount of talking I notice people doing. I'm mostly just surprised that people seemed shocked that the parent commenter only expects that their median number of words per day is 50, especially when they also mentioned their _average_ is much higher than that. To me, that seems like someone who occasionally says quite a lot (maybe when meeting up with friends or family, or going to some sort of social event) but happens to live alone and doesn't feel the need to make small talk when they go out to run an errand or something (which also might not be very frequent, given how much can be ordered online these days).
What's impossible about that? If he said average, you're right. But back when I lived alone and worked remotely I barely talked in real life, except when hanging out with friends (when it was probably 10k+ words in an evening). I think I honestly only said "hello", "thank you", "by card" etc, when doing errands, and that's all. It's not as ascetic as you think, I type a lot daily, to the point that when talking irl with someone I often say "like you wrote" instead of "like you said". I have a wife now, so that completely changed for me, but I absolutely believe in the 50 word median.
Tuition is often subsidized with the expectation that graduates will get a better salary than otherwise, generating more tax income in the long run than the amount of the subsidy. As such, free or heavily subsidized tuition can actually be a great investment for the government.
And yes, from that point of view, the students are the product.
This is true for public universities but does not apply to Harvard, which is not part of the government. Any benefit that Harvard obtains from an increased tax base is incredibly attenuated and not really relevant.
The world is overpopulated, population collapse is a good thing. Except for the economy. Which also happens to be a good thing considering how far we're into overshoot.
Not enough people to take care of seniors? That's not really a problem. The problem is it pays better to do other work that's useless or downright destructive to society, like trying to show users more ads to get them to consume more.
Just an anecdote, I'm not downplaying the man's achievement;
I've been donating plasma a lot for the past three years and one thing I noticed is how obsessed the people at the center are with the number of donations one has made. People talk about it all the time, they ask you how many you've done as if measuring your worth, the nurses congratulate you on reaching certain thresholds and they even give you label pins with the number on it, the number is plastered in huge font on the website when you take an appointment. The old men (because they are always men) who have made 1000+ donations talk to you about how you can make certain types of donations that count as 3 at once.
I find it disappointing how gamified the system has been, and how people come to measure each others by the number, which becomes a very tangible karma number. In a way, this game has become their best incentive to get people to donate continuously, given how it's illegal in Canada to pay someone to give blood fluids.
Seems like simple enough utilitarian ethics: good comes of increasing the supply of donor blood, not worrying about the motivation of the donors.
While I do believe more people should donate and it's a trivial thing one can do to save lives, I also arguably have a selfish reason to do it: blood draws keep my iron levels stable, because my body doesn't otherwise process and eliminate it at the rate it should.
You can understand why they would want to encourage donors to come back to donate again. It's not a bad thing they're getting you to do, it's harder to get someone who's never donated to do it than someone who is currently donating.
I am also a donor, and I'd been wondering the same thing. But then I decided that I am okay with it - people donate for different reasons, and it's the result that matters here.
Except this man’s contribution was the fact he had a rare antibody and rather than shy away from donations he gave as much as he could, providing a larger more direct impact to those pregnant mothers that needed his antibody.
There's so much focus on trying to increase income and not so much on trying to reduce expenses. Both sides of the equation work, but not equally.
I find reducing expenses is much easier. I manage to live on about 20% of my net income, and I could make more than two of me live while earning minimum wage. Since the amount of savings needed for retirement is directly related to your expenses, by reducing them you need to save even less.
Make a budget, see where you can save the most. Move to a low cost-of-living area, get rid of your car, learn to cook, and in general learn to be content on less.
Sure, we can't dream for the standard of living our parents and grandparents had anymore. But this standard was in no way realistic. It was fueled by an era of cheap energy and a booming, young population. It was never environmentally sustainable. Nor would it be even with renewable energy. We have to adjust our standards.
The tragedy for me is not on an economic level, it's on a social level. The fragmentation of ideologies, the loss of community, the loneliness, the atrophy of real life interactions. Not that I have known much of what it was like before. Yet this is also a choice we make collectively. Rebuilding community takes time but it's definitely doable. And from my experience it starts by moving aside from technology.
reply