> at levels that only result in a little dizziness.
Anecdotal first hand account, I would have to completely disagree with you. I tried intravenous ketamine therapy about a year ago. I’m plenty experienced with psychoactives, having experienced several at varying doses, so I knew what I was in for. My IVKT experience was a full on trip, definitely not just passive dizziness.
While I can imagine it's possible that usage of substance A "breaks" new ground in your sensitivity to substance B by "opening" some new pathways, I find it unlikely:
The "standard" pathways for most substances is to build a tolerance to it (and similar compounds) over time of use. If you drink coffee a lot you don't get hyped by the same dose of caffeine, if you drink lots of alcohol it's harder to get you drunk, etc.
So if anything I'd expect "veterans" to be less sensitive to it. But there are substances that permanently reduce your tolerance to them, usually by causing some form of permanent damage, so it's possible that you might "break" something limiting your experience.
>When the plane arrived, he was given a flight helmet with built-in headphones but it was too small for his head. Bohr, therefore, did not hear the pilot’s instruction to begin using his oxygen mask and passed out. The Mosquito pilot was forced to drop the plane to a lower altitude to revive the oxygen-starved scientist.
Good to know there are products targeted at exclusively the ultra wealthy. Was worried that with all of the calls for them to pay their fair share of taxes that the markets for them would dry up. /s
Yes. Actually 100C. The sauna i usually go to goes up to 240F (115C). The reason this doesn’t immediately scald you is that air has a tiny fraction of the specific heat of water, so the energy being transferred to the skin is at a much lower level. You can reject a large portion of this heat by sweating
This is a big sauna, most of the air is not at that temperature. And I would certainly not attempt endurance in it, but the thermometer on the wall usually is between 235F and 245F
Exactly, so here we are talking about dry 100C saunas in replies to someone claiming that Finns sit in wet 100C saunas every week. I find it hard to believe. Humidity makes a massive difference.
There’s some economic idea I heard a long time back whenever I hear about piracy, where basically the argument for allowing piracy of digital goods is “well, the majority of digital pirates lack the income to be honest customers in the first place; even if you managed to stop 100% of digital piracy, you’re not going to find any residual revenue.”
I don’t know how I feel about it, but it always intrigued me.
To model this, start by considering an abstract price vs demand curve - as price goes down demand goes up. Since we are looking at a digital good, supply is effectively unlimited (actually the marginal cost of offering a file for download which is zero until you’re too big for “free” options like google drive or imgur etc). So if we offer our digital good at the low low price of 0£, everyone who is interested in our product will “buy” it (ignoring discoverability and marketing, this happens with technical books all the time). However, if you raise the price to £5, some percentage of those who are interested will no longer be willing to buy. Perhaps money is tight and that’s their lunch, that means the opportunity cost of buying the digital good is lunch. Those people are never going to buy, at practically any price, so piracy is the only way to reach that segment of the market. The question is how big that segment is and whether there exists some price point that will get them to buy while continuing to provide incentive for you to offer the good.
There is also an interesting sidebar on the overhead of doing a transaction for any non-zero amount vs giving something away for free. The gist is that if you could do a (micro)transaction for $0.01 cheaply enough, you would be able to capture more of that market by lowering your overhead for offering the good.
This is also related to the idea that the optimal amount of fraud is not zero [1].
Everyone I know who used to pirate music, now just subscribes to Spotify or whatever. So definitely not the case there.
On the other hand, not one person I know who used to pirate Photoshop, has ever then personally paid for it once they started making money. (Their employer often did, though.)
Movies/TV are somewhere in the middle. I think a lot of people pirate because the content they want to watch is spread out among so many services that need separate subscriptions. You can't pay for all of them all the time when you go for months without touching some of them, but constantly canceling and resubscribing is madness.
Also dealing with the nonsense that Netflix won't display high-quality resolution on all external displays, etc.
>On the other hand, not one person I know who used to pirate Photoshop, has ever then personally paid for it once they started making money. (Their employer often did, though.)
Hi! Nice to meet you. With the much derided (on HN) monthly plan, I have been paying for Photoshop (and its cohorts) for my own personal use without an employer paying for it. I even have a paid for version of Office. In fact, I no longer have any software illicitly obtained. It's either a fully paid version or something offered for free. Why? Because I can afford it in direct counter to your argument.
I'm not sure that's true. I think that large software packages like photoshop have become way more available for people to pay for with subscriptions. I never paid for it and never would pay thousands of dollars for it, but now it is included in a $30 a month subscription from Adobe that I got mostly for Acrobat.
The only practical way for a high school student to get photoshop was to pirate it when I was a kid. My parents weren't going to shell out thousands of dollars for something like photoshop or autocad.
Speaking for myself, I don't use Photoshop often enough for $30 / month to be worth it. I wouldn't have been able to justify thousands of dollars either, but if I could pay a couple of hundred for a perpetual license with an upgrade discount when new versions come out that would get my business.
Well, they also still bought CD's they liked back then. Usually their favourite bands, or whatever. Even in the Napster/LimeWire days when everyone was doing it they always still seemed to buy their favourite artist's new CD's when they came out.
> Everyone I know who used to pirate music, now just subscribes to Spotify or whatever. So definitely not the case there.
Sure, people can ascend through income classes, but there’s always a new cohort of broke young people. I imagine young adults today are pirating plenty as well.
I think there is probably few percent of revenue to find but person pirating 10 $60 (or now $70) games is not going to buy 10 games when they won't be able to pirate them.
They might save up to buy one $60 game. Or wait for it to go on sale and buy it for $30
On flip side, seeing some DRM-ridden game often just makes me throw it on wishlist and buy in a year or two when they remove it and game is now half the price.... not like I have time to play all the games I want anyway
In Spain is legal to download and share but people often pay for it anyway.
As Gabe Newell said the best way to combat video game piracy is by offering consumers better service than what they might receive from pirates. Piracy is not a pricing issue, but rather a service problem.
That was true for me the years I wore an eye patch. Now I have the money but turn to piracy occasionally for convenience. Make it easy for people to pay and consume content and piracy goes down.
"no sound" doesn't work for me, in the absence of sound all I hear is myself, and my thoughts. Meditation apps actually work really well in helping me quiet my thoughts and fall asleep. Funny enough, economic or history lectures work really well too. I love those topics, but it clears the thoughts in my head I just see a story playing out in my head as I fall asleep.
One of the major issues is I have relatively high anxiety, and i'll just be stuck in a stress loop keeping me awake.
I personally sleep better with sounds, so that's why I created the app. If you sleep better without sounds that's great! I understand the app may not be for everyone, just wanted to share it with those who may find it interesting.
I have adhd. I find listening to familiar voices talking gives my brain just enough of something to focus on to calm my anxiety. Starcraft vods are my go to.
The entire concept of sleep/walk/calory tracking is entirely alien to me. I really can't help but laugh at this madness.
However, it seems reasonable to me that some individuals, not necessarily people, may need actual noise. Computer nerds waking up when power goes out (fans and HDDs turning silent) is not unheard of.
Normal is often the state of things when someone was still young/new at a place
There a few snarky answers to your question but the real answer is simple: what CEOs do is extremely hard, they don't just need to build a rocket, they need to build a 1,000 person team capable of producing rockets. Despite what some people may think there's no 1 person who has all the knowledge required to put a rocket into space, so the CEO is responsible for bringing all that knowledge together. Take a look at the flip-side - this bad CEO has been basically fired, how many billions of dollars do you think he cost Bezos through his failure? Would you have paid someone twice his salary if you thought they could do better?
Yeah a good ceo would have saved a ton of money but where are you going to find one? It’s not like the system produces people who effectively quash toxic managing culture. More than likely the system and incentives actually promote the most toxic folks to the top. You would probably have equal or better results by promoting a promising mid level leader that’s still in touch with the group floor reality.
It depends on the situation. There are cases where the organization wants to do everything and you need a leader who will force them to prioritize. There are cases where you have several internal groups with competing objectives and need a leader who can get them to cooperate. There are cases where everyone is already moving in the right direction and you need a leader who will take all the stops out. There are cases where bold and perhaps unpopular decisions need to be made and seen through.
If you have a CEO who is currently stingy about making process improvements that aren't sexy and is focused largely on office politics and that's not what the company needs at the moment, promoting someone who has been down in the trenches is a great option. Conversely if a company is bloated and needs to tighten its belt to survive, you might want someone who can look at it as dispassionately as possible. Really you can't look at it in terms of good or bad ceo, but rather appropriate or inappropriate.
There are often just bad ceo hires. It’s not always about picking the best tool for the best situation sometimes it’s just some dude that padded his resume the best, and got lucky to be in the right place at the right time who was likable by the right group on the board. There are a lot of duds out there that come in talk a big game and then leave a mess in their wake.
In blues case though this guy was hand chosen by Besos so the only property that matters is being liked by Jeff. So who knows what he saw in him.
> what CEOs do is extremely hard, they don't just need to build a rocket, they need to build a 1,000 person team capable of producing rockets
Maybe you could argue this is what they should be doing, but it's clearly not what they are doing. The vast majority of CEOs simply suck some of the blood out of the company before flying off an parasitizing another one. You say the other answers are snarky; I say yours is naive.
> Would you have paid someone twice his salary if you thought they could do better?
No, I would have paid a random engineer who didn't want the job 1/10th of the CEO's salary and gotten a TREMENDOUSLY better outcome.
Nothing much really. It is just they know a guy personally who can pay their high salary. If you know also someone like that just go get your high earning.
Anecdotal first hand account, I would have to completely disagree with you. I tried intravenous ketamine therapy about a year ago. I’m plenty experienced with psychoactives, having experienced several at varying doses, so I knew what I was in for. My IVKT experience was a full on trip, definitely not just passive dizziness.