Many of the comments here show why critical thinking is a useful skill esp with articles such as this one, but given how much volume there is nowadays, and the fact that we are not all subject matter experts, it becomes a bit cumbersome.
I wish these articles had a "Ways in which our claim could be wrong" section. Maybe every article should. E.g. Here is what i think, but here are aspects of it that I haven't looked into that could make me change my stance.
At the very least, you'd know the author made some effort to be truthful, and not just sensationalist/misled.
Perhaps we can have a browser extension that aggregates and ranks crowdsourced feedback on articles such as this one? :P
It's also worth keeping in mind who this data/report for. Bloomberg has a specific audience, who love distilled information - that is doesn't capture the whole picture is a given, but who really has the time to do research themselves? That's why you pay Bloomberg.
But now with the internet, any rando can read this stuff and obsess over it.
Isn't that what the comments section of an article is ? Crowd sourced feedback ? The problem with crowd sourced feedback is that most of it is low effort/low quality trolling.
But if I owned the WSJ (or any publication) and a subscriber shared an article here-and-there on a forum I personally wouldn't be mad. Perhaps doing so would even lead to more subscribers.
"Unless, of course you ruin your voice, but let's not think about that possibility."
Yeah, of course. Let's not think about it. Except for we should.
Here is my view. Introduce balance in your life - push yourself for a limited amount of time per day, pursuing a specific goal, and do it intelligently. Like when you are in the gym - lift more than you should for longer than you should and get to enjoy 6 months of tendonitis.
It is not because you are weak/dumb. It's because your approach is weak and dumb.
Waaaay back when I was in AIESEC (fervent sort of student sales-training / exchange organization) someone drew a fantastically simple little diagram. It was three circles, one inside the other.
The inner-most was labeled "comfort zone." The second was labeled "discomfort zone." The third was "panic zone." Outside the third was "the universe."
The presenter argued that you never got rid of your "discomfort zone" or your "panic zone," but you could slowly expand your "comfort zone" by venturing into your "discomfort zone," essentially making things comfortable that used to be uncomfortable to you, and stretching your boundaries. As long as you don't stray into panic zone, you'd be ok. And as long as you keep doing this, your little circles would encompass more and more of the universe.
So an example - you're trying to learn guitar. You are extremely uncomfortable about playing in front of other people, so first you force yourself to play in front of your romantic partner. That eventually becomes comfortable, and so you play in front of some close friends. Over time, you're finally comfortable enough to play an open mic night... and so on.
But, if you had gone straight from beginner to open mic night, with nothing in between, you might have gone into a full blown panic, and permanently associated guitar playing with the sheer panic scenario of open mic night with no prior context, and forever ruined the hobby for you.
Burnout is basically the result of a lack of mental and intellectual deload periods.
Anyone with any familiarity of physical training knows why deload is important, but culturally so many people feel like they're slacking off if they take it easy for a couple days, much less a week.
I'm pretty sure the author wrote that sentence playfully.
I think I'm comfortable with the notion that pushing forward to greatness in one spot will almost always come at the expense of something else.
We can only do so much. Balance is a hard concept. I think we're largely in agreement, but I don't think Adele would take back her career and her royalties to save herself from a surgery, nor should anyone compel her to do so. If she could learn how to be a superstar while preserving her voice that'd be ideal, but in our professions and lifestyles we don't always get that choice.
That said, I think baseball pitchers have a Tommy John problem. If baseball culture pushes the human body beyond what it can bear because it knows there's another tendon to play with after a year of rehab, you could make a case that there is a systemic issue worth fighting against.
This holds true for nearly all physical activities. Was mountain biking in Whistler a couple weekends ago, and my riding mate broke his collarbone due to riding a trail that was at the edge of his range.
Such discoveries (yes, of similar or greater quality) are made so frequently in the southern parts of the Balkans / Italy that they are almost skipped in the news. Yet, when it happens in France it makes the NYT and the event is 'exceptional'.
The NYTimes didn't call them exceptional, the French Culture Ministry called them an "exceptional discovery", as did an archeologist working on the excavation.
If you read the article what makes this "exceptional" is the fact that the fires which destroyed the place actually had a preserving effect:
'The fires essentially froze in place much of the neighborhood’s architecture, including even the artifacts left behind by residents fleeing the blazes, “transforming the sector into a veritable ‘little Pompeii’ of Vienne,” according to Archeodunum.'
So no its not just any old Roman find.
A culture minister seeing a marketing opportunity for tourism likely had their office issue a press release and as stated in the article invited journalists to come to tour the site this week.
Similarly the archeologist from Archeodunum likely put out their own press release as it's good for business.
Perhaps those parts of the Balkans/Italy you mention should have their respective cultural minister to do a better job marketing their finds.
This is very likely a "lost in translation" or "false friend" moment.
The French "exceptionnel" means: one of a kind, typically due to extenuating cricrumstances.
(When your local bakery is closed because the baker broke his leg, the note on the window will say "fermeture exceptionnel"..
The Culture Ministery's comments are therefore quite accurate for this case, and not so much pomp.
I gotta say, as fucking annoying as I find most of you people on other topics, I am so thrilled to see your support for a cause such as this one. You almost killed the cynic in me :) Go hackers!
And as someone new to both HN and the tech culture in general, I'm stunned by both the intelligence of the comments offered and the soul behind them. Doing this work has definitely done my heart good.
"...And that is a good thing. If they can be influenced in a bad way quickly, then they can be influenced in a good way..."
Are you just interested in making arguments for arguments' sake?
Besides that, all of your comments are good examples about why direct democracy is not a always a good idea - because most people don't have enough time/desire to think issues through, and yet they are willing to be adamant about their opinions on them.
So, let's trust a few who are even more distracted because of demands on their time and brain power.
Arguing for 500 congressman with all the power is arguing for all the "Research Institutes" which write the laws for them.
How many years would it have taken if we had forced those 500 to write just 2300 page ACA/Obamacare?
> why direct democracy is not a always a good idea
Always? When did I say always? I specifically said it had least things working against it compared to other methods. You could have second coming of Christ and these lands will be blessed again in his kingdom, but we are discussing state of affairs till that happens, aren't we?
