I just switched my banking from the largest national institution in Australia to a local credit union and another bank that has always had an online/phone only model and is good at it. I get the best combination of human customer service and good value accounts and leave behind the abysmal contempt for customer service demonstrated by the major, with all its infuriating new AI mediocrity. I can't be the only one?

I even go as far as not doing the self checkout at the supermarkets. But In the end I don’t think it will make a difference.

Not everyone has the grit to hold up to the customer retention tactics that companies use once they learn you’re leaving. Offering a short term discount or a last-ditch attempt to look into the customer’s otherwise long neglected issue costs much less and retains most customers out there.

Plus the Swedish Gripen jet fighters are designed to operate off roads rather than requiring long, smooth runways, as well as be main†ained in the field.

I learned a few years ago to see (and hear) the word "just" as a red flag, whether used by others or myself. I do catch myself "just"ing sometimes, but always seek to restate the sentence without the word "just". It is reliably a clearer, more honest and expressive formulation, and provokes deeper consideration in both the listener and, importantly, the speaker.

(Just is an overloaded word with several definitions, some of which are fine - "a just decision", "it just happened" - I'm referring to its use in a dismissive, diminutive or disparaging sense.)

My other red flag words are "assume" and "trivial". As in "I just assumed it was trivial".

Some might say that's a part of the problem. After the cold war, many Eastern European states received financial and other support and thrived as western-style democracies while Russia was more marginalised and went through period of economic decline, leading to rise of Putin as president after the "Chechen terrorist" apartment bombings and the demise in all but name of the fledgling democratic system. Parallels with history of Germany after WW1 / Weimar / Reichstag.

Ideal outcome may be that Russia ends up with different leadership after this disaster, and a strong, healthy democracy, with more of a stake in the global order - similar to Germany post WW2. Wishful thinking at this stage perhaps...

I read this article more because I'm interested in Zen than QM. But it prompted a question for me. What (if any) is the relationship between QM (which I understand to manifest mainly at the level of particles and very small scales) and the science of complex non-linear dynamic systems (colloquially "chaos theory"). Both centre around the philosophical concept of unknowability, unpredictability, uncertainty. Both prompt questions around why the world is the way it is, rather than any of the other states it could have ended up in, which leads to wondering about whether alternate states could, or should, also exist. I personally find complexity more approachable, as it concerns phenomena that are at a more relatable scale - the weather, the economy, species evolution etc. Is there any intersection between QM and complex systems science in the conventional/institutional sense, e.g. in study or research? Or are they separate rabbit holes?

This is something I'm interested in as well (also being interested in Zen and systems theory).

There's an interpretation of QM called hidden variables theory that essentially states that the probabilistic nature of quantum behaviour is due to QM being emergent behaviour from lower variables that we haven't discerned. It isn't in vogue, but it fits a systems perspective perfectly. Through this lens QM is a dynamical system, though perhaps not chaotic (I'm still not sure as to the boundary between dynamical and chaotic behaviour given both imply complex nonlinear causality).

But then, a big issue with QM is that it's unintuitive, so that's probably confirmation bias on my part.

Thanks, I'll look into hidden variables.

Prudent caution about snakes is good. I just today moved two small (<1m) but quite venomous snakes from my pool shed out into the bush, very carefully. But a reaction as extreme as yours may not serve you well in an encounter, it's best and safest to stay calm. Personally I was quite arachnophobic growing up, but have found that 20+ years living in Australia and the normalisation of removing the odd big huntsman from the house has made it so they don't bother me now. I believe this also helps me be more confident in other areas too. Like they say, beyond fear is freedom. Maybe have a look around for groups, hypno etc? All the best.

Either Gsuite or Office 365 with the Web/mobile apps costs around $5/month/user, and includes Email. Just sayin.

I expect smart glasses to be the next UI paradigm. Very conveniently portable. AR style visual interfaces. Built in speakers for personal audio (bose already do this in sunglasses). The AR interface could be directly manipulated by hand gestures using cameras and other sensors. I know there have been a couple of false starts (Google Glass) and current products with bigger form factors (Hololens), but I expect spectacles size devices with good UI in the not too distant future, and I look forward to the development opportunities.

The problem that I see is getting systems where I own all of my data - my data never leaves my devices, or is encrypted on my servers.

I used to be a proponent of IoT until realizing that IoT is just a HUGE opportunity to gather the most economic and personal data on people stupid enough to pay for the devices that surveil them. Sort of like paying someone to kick you.

I've never read Black Swan. I found Antifragile hugely thought-provoking. Knowing both, would you imagine I had anything to gain from also reading Black Swan, or do you really think they basically cover the same ground?

I read both, and Fooled By Randomness. I would say you stand to gain a lot reading about the older ones as well.

There is a lot of overlap in the Venn Diagram between the two. I would say read the first 80-100 pages of Black Swan and decide if you would like to complete the book.

I agree that attributing this to genetics is somewhat abstract - it would normally be attributed as a phenomenon of psychology. And "more attracted to the negative than the positive" is an ambiguous way of putting what I guess the OP meant - that fear is a more compelling emotional driver than "positive" things such as the desires to consume or procreate. But in the very long run, since this is all the result of evolution (leaving aside for now the possibility that it is all God moving in His mysterious ways, which, whilst I certainly can't disprove, isn't the thrust of the criticism) and considering that these same behavioral preferences are readily observable in all animals and indeed many plants and bacteria, then the suggestion that they are indeed ultimately transmitted and shaped by genetics seems reasonable?