Meditations isn't good, and the advice that people should read it before reading Discourses (Epictetus) is often what creates a misleading view on stoicism as they never get to Discourses because of the larger time commitment. However it's this time commitment and patience that is at the core of stoicism.
If you read Discourses, you would recognize your error in believing that a man can be free in jail, for he does not have the ability to choose where or how to exist, those are both limited directly by the existence of the jail. He can tolerate it, but not be free, as a stoic would tolerate a broken arm rather than claiming the broken arm makes them stronger.
The "tedious recipe blogs that require so much scrolling" usually first start with an emotional story about how the dish reminds the author of their childhood, which is included (presumably) to milk SEO and also annoy readers, followed by a recipe with maybe one photo.
This is a recipe with short (but not one-liners) yet helpful instructions, including images of how the cooking process would work.
You've made the experience more tedious to create now. If we adhere to the article's advice, you work from the novice upwards. You create more and more freedom as you go up, you also have an easier time catching problems between levels this way.
In your proposal, we're expected to start from the top magically creating the best experience, and then jumping back down to novice users, and then scaling up back towards expert level to cover the gaps. It sounds quite jarring, and in practice it winds up leading to lackluster tutorials made by experts who overestimate everyone else's levels (see: "How to draw an owl: draw a circle, now draw the rest of the owl").
Creating a good system for advanced users is not magic.
In practice, what tends to happen (when things go well, that is) is that people follow the same course as Douglas Engelbart’s development of the NLS system, which he called “bootstrapping”, and which we today might call “agile” or possibly “devops”. I.e. the initial users are using the system from day 1, and developers are constantly giving users more options and features to aid the users, and since the developers are either in close cooperation with the users, or the groups simply overlap, the finished system (that is, when it starts to change more slowly) is one in which the system is quite complex, but all users are also advanced users who can use it at high speed to tremendous advantage.
This is the point at which you should go back and add intermediate levels, tutorials, easy modes, child proofing, etc.
Most operating systems have a lot of really useful shortcuts that most people don't use despite it potentially making their lives 10x easier like Ctrl/Cmd+C. Swipe to undo, holding down the key to access accented keys (also works on address bars as it prompts you to add common domains like .com or .net), slide to type, etc. An easy way to discover most of these (on iOS specifically) is just to go through the working with text section in the iOS Tips app.
>And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport.
The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD
These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses.
So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!
Nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and yet that's exactly what is needed from humanity. Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat.
I will add however that oil companies wouldn't stop processing so much oil right away, they will do what desperate powers do which is cling to remaining power as tightly as they can. This isn't something worth really caring about in the long run, but something to be cognizant of when trying to shift public behaviour as they will undoubtedly be affected by the propaganda such powers will be obsessively pushing out.
See also: tobacco companies spending several decades avoiding regulatory processes in advertising and convincing people they had no idea it was harmful nor that it was their fault for encouraging such consumption. Sounds a little familiar to several other industries.
A survey sticks in my mind; it found that people were considerably more willing to pay higher taxes if they trusted everyone else would pay their share too. I think the same lesson can be applied here. Nobody wants to personally make big sacrifices while everyone else is living large, and I can’t blame them.
If the producer has to deal with the problem and prices rise, no one can opt out of sharing the burden.
> Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat.
If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives. Cardboard straws suck ass. Without exception, every single cardboard straw I've ever used was soggy and tasted... well, like cardboard. They simply are not viable replacements. Fake meat is better at least (I've had impossible burger and it's legitimately good), but it's hella expensive and that's going to be a hard sell for people. Moreover, talk about not eating meat is absolutely dominated by people who have a moral objection to eating meat, not people who are concerned about carbon emissions. Which is fine, but the majority of people don't agree there is a moral issue (and many even think it's crazy to hold that position), so that's not going to convince anyone to bear a higher price. Get the price more on par with ground beef, get the public perception to be about the environment and not animal rights, and you could probably see big changes.
Conversely, look at LED bulbs versus incandescent. While they cost more up front, LED bulbs last forever and cost so much less in terms of electricity that they are just overwhelmingly better for most uses. I myself don't give two shits about the environment, but I don't see myself buying anything but LED bulbs ever again. They're just that much better. That's the kind of innovation one needs to advance if one wants to change the behavior of the masses. Give them something which is not only environmentally better but practically better, and they will adopt it. But you can't expect most people to sacrifice for the environment. The reality is that most people just don't care, and they aren't going to sacrifice for something they don't care about.
I actually had a great (for cardboard) straw from jacksons in portland this weekend. I grabbed 3 of them thinking they'd melt. It did 2 full ~42oz diet dews over 4 hours before it started melting. the 2nd one lasted longer (I re-used the cup for drinks that night) holding up to 4 32 oz coke zeros and vodka. I was amazed.
> If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives.
If people are not ideologically onboard with "we don't want society to collapse" while wanting to keep using plastic straws... I think they need information more than viable alternatives.
Part of the issue with your argument is that most policymakers will be dead by the time society collapses, so they don't care as much. Sure, there's often rhetoric around "saving the world for my children and their children", but in the end most people are selfish and are fine with making things the problems of future generations.
"Information" doesn't sway people. Feelings do. If they feel like they're eating/using/whatever something inferior to what they've grown up using, all in the name of sustainability, they're going to balk.
> Part of the issue with your argument is that most policymakers will be dead by the time society collapses
Hmm... given how it is going (climate seems to be changing faster than the models predicted), it's getting more and more clear that global instability, wars and famine will be here in the next few decades (if you doubt the "famine" issue: take any big US city, and ask yourself what happens if trucks can't get into the city and bring food for a few days). Unless most policymakers are 60 or so, they have a good chance to live long enough to see that. Most definitely their children.
> "Information" doesn't sway people. Feelings do.
When you realize how bad the biodiversity problem is, how bad climate change is, and how bad the energy problem (which is actually the root cause of the other two) is, I think the only reasonable feeling you can get is fear. Maybe faith in technology helps (many people hide behind "they will find a solution"), so maybe one needs to realize that the tech industry is a big money-making joke.
But once you get that information, you should get the fear. And fear should make you accept to start thinking about actions to mitigate the consequences of... well of our way of life.
Definitely in agreement, also a big proponent of gradually increasing taxes to incentivize certain spending to speed up that process. They're not popular but very effective.
The good news is a lot of the positive change is already in progress. Bad news is the national goals for many countries are all still minimum 25 years away with people desperately clinging onto the hope that some magical technological breakthrough will happen that ensures we don't have to sacrifice anything currently.
On one hand, the rule is good, on the other a loss for everyone else who enjoys influential figures demonstrating how petty and childish they are behind the layers of image crafting.
They can keep padding their resume if it means little fixes actually happen. Even typos and little translations, they affect the general reputability of the software. Sounds like a fair trade, especially as most hiring companies can just look at PRs and see what was actually changed very easily.
