If you make thin gulasz, you're doing a goulash tasting soup. When properly done, you should be able to stand a spoon upright in it.

That's also why building homes is so costly. Transporting non-local materials costs more than making them near. Then you need to support builders, plumbers, electricians...

> ere is a very simple statement which may sound a bit mean: it is entirely feasible that giving a job to a “stupid” person, regardless of how much we try and train them, might cost the economy more than we benefit, in aggregate.

Well, if they don't put in effort, however small, and get resources, others will try to be stupid too. Or, they would not get enough resources, starve and those with empathy will be very vocal and use shame.

For a bit is ok. I had one month task, that was interrupted daily for over a year, that's how I got demotivated and burned out so much that I needed neurologist.

> two difficult tasks that were supposed to be done in parallel maybe that would be different, but I've never seen anyone asking for that.

Probably that's why you say interruptions are good, no experience of how bad can interruptions be.

Better safe than sorry, he said to himself and told his tribe that the winter was indeed expected to be cold and that the members of the village should stock up on firewood to be prepared.

After several days, our modern Chief got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, "Is the coming winter going to be cold?"

"It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold," the meteorologist at the weather service responded.

So the Chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared. A week later he called the National Weather Service again. "Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?"

"Yes," the man at National Weather Service again replied, "It's going to be a very cold winter."

The Chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find. Two weeks later the Chief called the National Weather Service again. "Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?"

"Absolutely," the man replied. "It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters ever."

"How can you be so sure?" the Chief asked.

The weatherman replied, "The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy."

What happens when you have kids? You leave something that will last after your death. Then you make sure that they are properly raised and have enough resources, so that your "mark on the world" is more appreciated by other people. Ultimately all the "good life" have one thing in common. Improving life of our species.

> It's absolutely nothing to do with what's good to do, only brute facts of power.

This sentence reads like: "if we narrow our view this much, this makes sense". I agree that it makes sense under the condition that we narrow the view of issue. It's valid in this small context (a film about controlling one thing).

> And indeed, toddlers and psychopaths have a scarily good understanding of what power is.

I disagree completely with this sentence. They are good at controlling in certain situations. They don't understand it. If you want to understand it, there is a lot of information about controlling, whole fields of knowledge that people spend many years on studying. As for psychopaths, they are very predictable and controllable when you understand control theory and how psychopaths operate. There are courses on this single topic by people who need to do it to prevent tragedies (police negotiators) and they are not that complicated.

Alternative definition of control: You do some actions and it changes state. It's used by a field called "control theory". A lot of people agreed on this definition. Destroying something is "end of control, because there is no more things to control". You can control something UNTIL you destroy it. That's why I think "you control what you can destroy" is invalid, because it captures only one small aspect of controlling things, and also the least usable one.