Don't be like this person. Literally, throw away all the video game machines you own and take an extremely long walk in Tibet if needed. This is a cautionary signal. If you relate to this, you're going to throw your life away.
I was responding to a sub-thread but it got deleted before I could finish. This is what I think about this:
Someone said:
>> it could be hurtful to people to attempt to archive by getting sucked into cycles of attempting to break a neurological predisposition
That's rather well put.
From the outside, some people are an abyss, permanently dominated by this type of cyclical thinking, in which getting out of the abyss creates new and interesting forms of drama. And the attraction of that gravity well to newbs who haven't e.g. been long-term alcoholics or locked up for suicidal tendencies, is precisely the fact that it gives one a temporary satisfaction (even worse, maybe, a way of lording it over others) of having addressed a particular neurotic trait, while substituting a load of other negative traits in exchange.
Nothing good ever comes out of the speech where one has repressed a particular neurosis by coming to terms with it in some crystalline fashion. It's a speech either designed to scam others, or to scam oneself.
So, in plain English, what you're saying is to not obsess over fixing neuroses because it's an addiction in itself that leads to other negative traits?
> by coming to terms with it in some crystalline fashion
I’m not sure I get you. There are certainly ingenious speeches but there are genuine ones, too (probably not speeches but genuine acceptance). See “Radical Acceptu” by Tara Brach.
I would say you have 2 reliable options, either to join various club or then (and this may get a lot of hate here) to rush a fraternity/sorority. It’s a pretty well structured way to funnel yourself into friendships. Yes it has its cons but it’s not unheard of to be more inactive senior year so think of it as a 1-2 year experience.
Respectfully, what is there not to understand? They’re expanding their footprint in NYC due to increased demand. I’ve heard here and there that headcount at Google NYC has always been tight, so this should alleviate some of that. Facebook and Amazon have also committed to massive leases in NYC within the past few years as well.
Besides that, these companies wield so much cash it seems like a safe bet to park a couple billion in. NYC real estate is arguably one of the safest bets in the modern era
I assume OP meant headcount, not desks. Talking to recruiters, NYC always seemed like one of the toughest offices to get into - presumably due to much greater demand than available space to put devs.
> NYC real estate is arguably one of the safest bets in the modern era
Uh huh. That's what they all said about commercial property in Western city-centres before the pandemic ... "a sure bet" they said .... "rents only going up" they said....
Now you walk through all these CBDs and they are shadow of what they were before because people discovered working from home either full-time or near enough (3-4 days a week) and the need for large chunks of commercial property is now being brought into question.
I generally agree that this is probably the fate for many American cities, but NYC seems to be in a league of its own compared to the other cities in North America. I feel like a better comparison is something like London, Rome, Mumbai, Beijing. These are cultural epicenters that are more resilient (but not immune) to economic downturns. Yes things might get tough for a bit but they're the place you want a multi bullion dollar investment to live when the goings get tough.
Considering NYC recovered economically from 9/11, which made parts of the city uninhabitable. I don't see this being as big of a concern, though it would be tragic if something like this happened.
A dirty bomb is not the same as a nuclear bomb. It takes a nation state to build a proper nuke, but some random terrorists could cobble together a dirty bomb.
I also generally agree with this but I think it's area dependent. Living close to a major metro, there have been very few rides where I can genuinely say that I did not at one point almost get hit by another vehicle, but I can imagine it being much safer in a rural area.
Surprised there's no mention of the book "The Son Also Rises" by Gregory Clark that dives into the same topic and compares multi-generational earnings and achievement across multiple societies, drawing similar conclusions.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18730716-the-son-also-ri...
Yes, it was basically just slowly growing as long as i owned it. But most my friends earned more than me, so it wasn't life changing (other than suddenly having time). I sold it after a few years for a low 5 digit amount.
I think the most important thing was to learn that i can make money without a "regular job". I haven't turned rich since then, but i have all the time focusing on projects i actually care about which is the single best job i can imagine.
But is it really? I am no designer so I don't know, but my weakest point as engineer often is a intuitive design. My affiliate sites would surely work better wouldn't they look like bootstrap templates.
I had to learn the basics of your job to succeed in mine, maybe it works the other way around too?
Can you elaborate more? I understand that they didn’t invent memetic desire (no one did it’s a innate human behavior from girard pov) but don’t understand the second portion of your comment
Until you lose most of your money in a bubble, you don't really get bubbles - they seem like something that only happens to other dumb people, not to you.
The most obvious, recent, and one of the biggest being the subprime housing bubble in the US.
Everyone who wasn't buying a house looked like a moron for 3 years as prices were going up >10% per year (on 33:1 leverage, if not near infinite leverage - a lot of these were no money down).
The average family was making more money in appreciation on their house than working their jobs.
> This paper shows that Newton did not just taste of the Bubble's madness, but drank deeply of it. His losses, even by conservative accounting, almost surely exceeded £10 000, and plausible methods easily produce values that exceed the £20 000 figure that family lore claimed, and which is frequently cited today. By comparison with typical earnings, and making allowances for a very different society and economy, £20 000 in 1720 might be comparable to £20 million, $20 million, or euro 20 million today.9 However, before the Bubble, in the 1710s, Newton's investments appear to have been those of a careful and shrewd person, and to have been very successful. Newton died rich, with an estate valued at about £30 000, but that is primarily because he was already rich on the eve of the Bubble.
Not GP, but I think what they mean is that most of gen Z has not yet seen a serious downturn with their own eyes and with their own money in the market. On one hand they have older generations telling them to watch out and that bubbles never last, but on the other hand all their own experience has ever told them is that stocks pretty much only go up and that meme stocks go up way more than "boring" companies with allegedly better fundamentals. It is a very human instinct for these gen-Z investors to trust their own observations much more than the advice they get from other people.
The argument is that eventually a crisis will come again (as it has done repeatedly every 10-20 years for centuries) and then the boring companies with big buffers and lack of risky behavior will be much better positioned to weather the storm, while many of loss-making companies in declining industries (yet with very high share prices due to meme stock status) will suffer more and possibly go bankrupt. That is the "weighing" part of the stock market boom/bust cycle as opposed to the "voting" part of the stock market that is currently exemplified by the stonks investing community.
