My experience has been the opposite. I've enjoyed working on hobby projects more than ever, because so many of the boring and often blocking aspects of programming are sped up. You get to focus more on higher level choices and overall design and code quality, rather than searching specific usages of libraries or applying other minutiae. Learning is accelerated and the loop of making choices and seeing code generated for them, is a bit addictive.

I'm mostly worried that it might not take long for me to be a hindrance in the loop more than anything. For now I still have better overall design sense than AI, but it's already much better than I am at producing code for many common tasks. If AI develops more overall insight and sense, and the ability to handle larger code bases, it's not hard to imagine a world where I no longer even look at or know what code is written.

Business and research are difficult enough even when done by tightly knit teams and constantly tested against real world systems and customer feedback. The idea that a hodgepodge of organisations can achieve poorly defined yet aspirational goals on a low budget is massively misguided.

The illnesses simultaneously cause hallucinations that enforce delusions, and twist your belief systems so you pick up on the most insignificant details to support your delusions. Almost all patients end up believing that they are god, Star Trek captains, or stalked by a government agency, because this best explains their (hallucinatory) experiences. For example, if you hear voices in your head, the patient can't usually understand it as an illness, but has to explain it in some other way, so you end up with CIA/god/whatever beaming voices into your head.

You could try planning for a longer break or vacation to see how you feel with more freedom, do you still want to do something "more meaningful" or do you actually miss work?

Even more than HN, what meaning you find tends to depend on the people around you. Imagine how some people in objectively much worse positions than you can despite that find much more meaning in their lives than you; usually because of the bonds they create with other people. (If you ever watched Star Trek or Futurama, remember how it wasn't the stuff the characters did that made it meaningful, but rather the characters themselves and their relationships..) Your social influences can be hard to change, but that's how it is. Meaning comes from being a part of something. Stuff you do on your own requires so much more effort to reach that same level of meaning.

It's not valuable in the sense that you can "practice" or "apply" the loop and perform better. Your behavior already follows this model. Its real value probably came from presenting this common decision making process in a way that appealed to upper military management, which made it easier to develop processes and practices that help decision makers (like pilots) in critical situations.

> "Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination"

In the worst case, about 450 people got Guillain-Barre due to the vaccine. Counterfactually, some thousands or even a million Americans might have died from the swine flu itself.

The number seems to be closer to zero than anything else.

Even one of the worst vaccine disasters, the Cutter incident in 1955, seems to have resulted in only some 10 deaths, of which 5 were indirectly caused.

Bioethicists who have forbidden challenge trials in vaccine trials have firmly taken the no-action stance in the trolley problem.

A normal phase 3 trial gives the vaccine to volunteers and waits for them to get sick (or not). A challenge trial is the same, but infects the volunteers intentionally, which significantly speeds up the trial and reduces the sample size needed.

The trolley is running over thousands of people every day, and by flipping a switch you could reroute it to another rail where only a few people would be at risk. The modern bioethicist stance is that flipping this switch is unacceptable. Maybe waiting for people to randomly fall ill instead of acting is more holy and sacred — or perhaps "natural".

Cummings said he had warned about the dangers of pandemics.

The original archived version of his blog post obviously warns about pandemics.

Archived version from 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20190331190550/https://dominiccu...

It was basically the same mistake UK did. Now they have very slowly begun to adjust away from the misleading path they originally set on.

The Finnish national health organization has been subject to severe budget cuts for the past ten years. They are still saying that masks do more harm than good, and that it's absolutely impossible to stop the virus, despite South-Korea having done so for almost 50 days already.

I fear Sweden is still basing their approach on those optimistic models, that likely don't apply to this particular pandemic. They seem to be making the same mistake UK did, except they haven't changed paths yet. They say they are only doing what is "scientifically proven", without realizing that peer review and randomized controlled trials alone are not enough for situations where decisions need to be made in short time with imperfect information.

If you know the main strategy of your opponent it to get you talking, your most obvious strategy is to not talk.