That’s an interesting line to draw from social media. Depends who you view as the reasonable I guess but I’m not sure I follow. Got any material that fleshes it out?

Kicking malaria’s butt too right. Sure you don’t get to be a billionaire without exploitation. But I doubt I’d be smart enough to organise philanthropy as well as they seem to be. So props to them for caring?

Lived in NY for a while (manhattan) and travelled to a lot of other states. The comparison rings true for me, NY has it’s own culture for sure.

Or you could read it as critical of capitalism.

“motivation, purpose, social skills, creativity” arguably all valued more under socialism/communism (admittedly there’s a lot of semantics going on under the hood here). Which is why so much tallent goes to waste as grist in the capitalist mill.

That doesn’t fit with anything I know about Weinersmith. You got any source?

Have you tasted 99% though. Bleurgh

This is the real unpopular opinion. 99% is like eating coffee grounds. I assume it only exists so people can feign sophistication.

I can’t tell the pretentious assholes apart from the people jokily pretending to be pretentious assholes. Great stuff.

Or like both but prefer sugar (and fat carefully tempered to a delecate snap). But seriously if you don’t like sugar I don’t understand why you would be messing with chocolate anyway.

Incidentally try caramelising white chocolate. fucking great. Which I think supports the white choc ~= sugar hypothesis.

Euchre can be gambled on right? So at least there is some angle where it’s “undesirable”.

The huge difference with the professions you mention is that in all of them successful participants don’t wed themselves to any premise. They can allow for the possibility of two competing premises, or even usefully imagine a world with a counterfactual premise, and accurately communicate the uncertainty or incongruence of their views (it is technically possible for political science to work this way too, but rare to find someone who hasn’t picked a “team” outside of academia).

The irrationality and intellectual danger lies not in adopting hypothesis but in granting them the status of dogma.

I would also argue that the potential for real world harm of adopting a wrong premise is way less for a cosmologist or mathematician than for a religious leader or politician. Relevant SMBC: http://smbc-comics.com/comic/purity-3

They were wrong about that too

Oh no we all think everest ascent is stupid too. Absolutely it’s in poor taste. Is this your first time on the Internet?

Eh its a meme at this point. Everyone knows to what you’re referring and recognises the shared experience of overconfident stupid people. Everyone educated on the topic understands that it’s a pop psychological misrepresentation of some very interesting work.

I notice it’s prevalent in populations that have had an excess of a certain type of “executive” education. Whether they are poorly educated or not… I leave to the reader.

It’s not a culture fair observation to be sure. Your Nobel prize winners I guess we’re old (hence part of a generation when smoking was more widespread). There are also countries where smoking is more or less universal.

People died because of their hubristic and needlessly extravagant hobby: visiting the wreck of a vessel that famously killed people because of hubris and needless extravagance. Sure I’m not laughing out loud or celebrating their death, but you must admit there’s at least a wry irony here.

It’s kinda poetic for them to go down next to the titanic, itself a story of complacency and excess/opulance.