>Status, like money and power, is a form of capital. If we can learn to tolerate our feelings of “not-enoughness,” we can then use status in service of what we care about, rather than being addicted to it as an end in itself.

If we can tolerate 'not-enoughness', what would be there that needs change? As a society, don't we have to tolerate addiction because that's the loop that drives our progress?

>Casey Rosengren is a founder and executive coach based in New York. If you’d like to learn more about ACT and values-oriented coaching, drop him a note.

'founder' - Does he use the title 'in service' or is he still trapped in the status game? In the latter case, is his advice still valid?

>consumer451 3 months ago | next [–]

>I was diagnosed with arthritis at a very young age. [...]

>One day I learned about modifying my diet to avoid inflammation. I greatly limited, but did not entirely eliminate, tomatoes and potatoes in my diet.

>[...]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34163231

How can they? SVB has made it clear that it is very difficult to maintain value. If Binance has invested all their money in securities, it's not unlikely that their investments have gone done down with the rising of the interest rates.

If they keep all money in regular banking accounts, they may still have it. But they are exposed to the risk that their bank or their banks become insolvent.

My guess would be that their headset is just a set of goggles that requires an iPhone for computation. Then, they can sell them for $300 or even $150.

The article suggests that VR is a tool for long-distance relationships. For $300, that could become possible.

But there still has to be infrastructure. Instead of reinventing the wheel, a new social network could be built on the Mastodon foundation. There would already be users and there would be an exit strategy for power users if the new network fails. Right now, it's not worth investing time in a new network because the social graph doesn't survive the end of the network. With Mastodon, it would be easy to migrate to a new service.

When you swap money for products, you don't need time. If the economy shifts to visibility and attention, instant transactions are not possible anymore. Whatever people produce, somebody needs time to consume it. So all the productivity gains will be used to create more audience.

VC does not only offer money but also connections. Even more so does YC and their startup school. If that's not enough, a unicorn is waiting to combine kickstarter.com and a social network to allow people to monetize their connections.

The limiting factor is the willingness to give up the comfort of a 9-5 job. In a world of working spouses, one partner can always risk their career, especially when the children have grown up a bit.

If their performance data is reliable, why does Meta need several rounds of layoffs? The foundation of their analysis is weak.

Apart from the lack of personal fulfillment, isn't it good for society, and thus not such a bad job, that fools are parted from their money? After all, consumers decide what our society does. If a consumer is not able to recognize a scam, how can society trust them to make meaningful decisions? A hustle guru will spend their money on fast cars and thus at least support state of the art engineering.

Since the feature is possible but not used, question remains why users don't need it.