My notes/ points that stood out for me:

- Actively seek diverse social, intellectual, and professional interactions. Each one expands your surface area for serendipity. TAKE MORE SHOTS!

- Don't go into interactions with an agenda. Real interest opens doors unexpected.

- Always aim for excellence. Even in small tasks. People notice this. A strong reputation pulls in opportunity.

- Give before you take. Offer attention, time, or resources without expecting immediate return. That builds high trust relationships.

- Share your authentic self. Put your unique thoughts out there. It's a magnet for those who truly resonate with you. Don't fake it.

- Host stuff. Simple, low pressure events work best. Taking the initiative to create connections is often more effective than just showing up.

Regardless, we all sense that excessive smartphone use ties to lower mood and higher depression risks. There's already an influx of people experimenting with timers, dumbphones, or just switching their phone off, but app builders will keep chasing our attention no matter what. It's their core business. As the patchy research (in both quantity and quality) shows, real change won't come until we as a society dig deeper into the problem.

key points that stood out to me:

- Smartphones are built to addict via dopamine from notifications and scrolling. Americans check theirs 144 times a day on average. Strong links to anxiety, depression, poor sleep, and weaker focus.

- Short breaks (24 hours to a week) can boost focus and mood. Limiting non work screen time to under two hours daily correlates with lower depression.

International cooperation is important, but over reliance on a single foreign partner, even a close ally causes risks. It leads to a situation where a country possesses shiny new military hardware but lacks the logistical support, sovereign weapons integration, skilled personnel, and overall control to use it effectively and autonomously.

I imagine the UK's experience with the F35 is a major driver in it's decision to partner with Japan and Italy on the next gen Tempest fighter, so they can regain sovereign control over its future air combat capabilities.

However, the problem extends beyond the F35. Although the UK has increased its defence budget in real terms, the extra funding has been outstripped by soaring equipment costs (Boeing mark up the costs of soap dispensers by 7,943%!), the legacy of decades of under investment, and the spiralling expense of strategic programmes like the nuclear deterrent. The budget for conventional forces does just not exist.

Some points that stood out to me:

- Progress is iterative and driven by a seemingly bottom up, meritocratic approach. Not a top down master plan. Essentially, good ideas can come from anywhere and leaders are promoted based on execution and quality of ideas, not political skill.

- People seem empowered to build things without asking permission there, which seems like it leads to multiple parallel projects with the promising ones gaining resources.

- People there have good intentions. Despite public criticism, they are genuinely trying to do the right thing and navigate the immense responsibility they hold.

- Product is deeply influenced by public sentiment, or more bluntly, the company "runs on twitter vibes."

- The sheer cost of GPUs changes everything. It is the single factor shaping financial and engineering priorities. The expense for computing power is so immense that it makes almost every other infrastructure cost a "rounding error."

- I liked the take of the path to AGI being framed as a three horse race between OpenAI (consumer product DNA), Anthropic (business/enterprise DNA), and Google (infrastructure/data DNA), with each organisation's unique culture shaping its approach to AGI.

No better way to be reminded there is a big difference between someone that surfs for fun and someone who is a surfer.

Surfing parts aside, this book taught me to appreciate the different parts of your life around your 'obsession' as you get older.

From the small sample size of my friends in SF/NYC and are well funded by a top-tier VC, most take lower salaries for more equity. The majority have the same salary as their seed round with small bumps along the way, but nothing crazy. A couple have reduced their salaries to extend runway without diluting themselves further.

The only exception seems to be those with families and dependents.

The only people affected are the lazy reviewers who weren't doing their job properly to begin with.

How can we realistically maintain the distinction going forward? Is widespread, mandatory watermarking the only answer, or is it a technically flawed/doomed approach? And as AI content likely floods the internet, will we, and how could we, even try to filter or avoid it?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44081300

Points: 4

# Comments: 6

Are there any particular niches or applications where community-sourced splats are especially well-suited? I see them mentioned on HN from time to time, but I'm curious about their primary use case at the moment.

Are the powertrains and control systems in power wheelchairs really that specialised? Or is it another case of the medical device markup and regulatory hurdles driving up costs?

I agree about the points about elitism in creative fields – there will probably always be some resistance to new tools and techniques like AI-generated art. But will that always be the case? It's possible that AI tools for artists could become so commonplace that they're expected — leading to entirely new and unforeseen styles and forms of expression.

Your points about authenticity and transparency also really resonated with me. Perhaps people will start to seek out and value art that's verifiably human-made or AI-free? Or maybe we'll see a greater emphasis on proving the authenticity of digital works?

In either case, we need to expose the grifters and ensure that traditional artists get the recognition and rewards they deserve. A world without original artists would be a far less vibrant and inspiring place.

Other takeaways that stuck with me were:

— Finding enjoyment in the process of learning and improving your own skills is crucial.

— Setting personal goals can help fuel growth.

— Sharing your work with others is a way to receive feedback and learn from other perspectives, but don't let pursuit, perfection or seeking monetisation overshadow the joy of the activity itself.

— Intrinsic rewards of your hobby or pursuit trump validation or financial gain.

In the end, you need to find something you enjoy doing, and do it because you ENJOY it.

My takeaways after reading it were not to surf, but rather, the importance of uncertainty, taking risks and how transformative the power of obsession really is.

The sample searches were particularly strong for uncovering discussions on specific subjects, i.e. 'Dedicated Vector Databases'.

With less focused searches, such as 'Deep Work', I notice some results feel only loosely related. Is this an aim – to broaden the scope of discovery that may not seem directly related?

Synchronous: A single time zone is designated, and all team members adapt accordingly. Although, this can be a pain for people far away.

Asynchronous: Flexible “overlap” periods are defined where everyone must be online.

In practice, though, remote teams I've worked in just seem to understand and accept that: A) You don't need a 'call', 'quick chat' or 'meeting' over video or voice most of the time B) If you are in a remote team, there is shared acceptance that there will be A LOT of asynchronous communication and people will reply when they can or are available. C) The situation changes the more time-zones you cover. Be flexible.

Those with roles that are 'mission-critical' or 'perpetually online', are usually on call or have a phone that is always available.

A handy resource for aligning schedules: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html