[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbp3kdJZ1_A

Some don't like to sell themselves and compete.

Some have confidence issues.

Some have ADHD and an on-paper track record that looks terrible.

Some want nothing to do with corporate America.

Does credibility really mean nothing anymore?

The gifted are more over represented in prison then black males, however, most of those gifted are themselves minorities.

However, I really wonder how formula 1 teams manage their engineering concepts and driver UI/UX. They do some crazy experimental things, and they have high budgets, but they're often pulling off high-risk ideas on the very edge of feasibility. Every subtle iteration requires driver testing and feedback. I really wonder what processes they use to tie it all together. I suspect that they think about this quite diligently and dare I say even somewhat rigidly. I think it quite likely that the culture that led to the intense and detailed way they look at process for pit-stops and stuff carries over to the rest of their design processes, versioning, and iteration/testing.

And even on markets where someone would benefit from inside information... insiders leak a lot more information than you'd think before it tends to hit the market. Even reading the news can tell you more than you'd think if you look at it right. The single biggest hint is "Why am I reading this, and why now?". News stories on geopolitics almost never arise naturally, and that question will get you to a LOT of information that was not explicitly stated.

I'll go so far as to say that almost any pesticide or herbicide is likely to be bad for vertebrates and invertebrates alike. This is really likely the case for perservatives as well, for what should be obvious reasons.

It's really not that crazy to assume they're probably not good as a default assumption.

Go into a hardware store and almost every chemical, solvent, paint, etc. that you encounter is not good for you. Eat a salmon and enjoy billions of plastic particles. Open almost any prepackaged food and you'll be ingesting all manner of dyes, perservatives, anti-caking agents, etc. etc. etc. that simply weren't around in your food environment during our evolution. It's a surprisingly good baseline assumption that these things aren't likely to be good for you.

If you think about the study design and epidemiologic studies, it should be clear that it's going to be very difficult to prove harm in a lot of cases for things that are only a little harmful, or only harmful in combination, or harmful only after 20 years have passed since exposure, etc. ...except that the science is VERY clear: something (or lots of things) associated with "processed food" is really bad for you.

I could not disagree more. A big part of that is also knowing when NOT to pull the trigger. And it’s much harder than you’d think. If you think full self driving is a difficult task for computers, battlefield operations are an order of magnitude more complex, at least.

Hendrix’s girlfriend Kathy Etchingham claims he never abused her. Some third parties dispute her claims about her relationship.

His arrest record suggests at least some type of altercation with a previous girlfriend but it’s far from clear cut to me.

People are complex and reality is complex. I myself was subject to false accusations about abuse from a disgruntled ex girlfriend (who actually WAS in fact physically and mentally abusive to me and I have the scars to prove it).

But regardless, I have zero issues reflecting on a person’s accomplishments and talents even in the context of them being a horrible person. In fact, I find that part of the intrigue of really talented people. Reality and people are quite multi-dimensional. The only general rule I know is that nobody is perfect and holding up ANYone as some example of moral perfection is almost certainly wrong.

What's really needed IMO is a drop-in tool to increase the ranking of thoughtful comments and decrease comments that drive engagement by making people angry. You need your tool to score comments on a scale for THAT. Combine that with policy mandating its use on algorithmically ranked sites for an audience above a threshold size and you have a tool to bring civility back to society. I don't think angry comments should be censured. I think they just should not be artificially amplified into everyone's feeds. While not perfect, there's a wonderful difference between hackernews comments and reddit comments and a great deal of it stems from the culture of self-moderation here.

Amplifying people with nuanced takes on things would go a long way honestly. As it stands, adversary countries are using this artificial anger amplification as a weapon, and its thus far been devastatingly effective.

To be honest, I wish the web had standardized on that instead of ads.

Is it totally fair? No. Is it reasonably high probability? IMO, yes. Is there likely information value on 4chan that could be difficult to find elsewhere? Probably. Is it worth my time and aggravation to sort through it? No.

Like even if I'm off by a factor of 2, then only ~3ish years are explainable by environment/exercise/diet/etc. Then... OK... that's really not that bad of an error in this context. That also feels a little low to me. I'd have guessed around 5-8 years anyway based on my experience with healthcare and life.

So environmental effects, sleep, diet, lifestyle, etc (I.e. modifiable factors) maybe account for half of that, so like 6-7.5 years of variance. Which… sounds about right to me.