recentpopularlog in


« earlier   
I Think I Know Why You're Yelling
1. You aren’t taking care of yourself
2. You have spent your baby’s first year distracting, appeasing or otherwise manipulating her rather than speaking honestly about limits
3. You feel responsible for your children’s emotions
4. Your expectations are unreasonable
5. You are confused about setting limits gently with respect
6. You needlessly enter into power struggles
parenting  janet-lansbury  advice 
7 hours ago by JorgeAranda
The Simple Truth Behind Reading 200 Books a Year – Member Feature Stories – Medium
Somebody once asked Warren Buffett about his secret to success. Buffett pointed to a stack of books and said, “Read 500 pages like this every day. That’s how knowledge works. It builds up, like compound interest. All of you can do it, but I guarantee not many of you will...”
reading  career  advice  personal  medium  blog  article  january  2017 
13 hours ago by rbf
A Dozen Things I’ve Learned from Charlie Munger about Inversion (including the Importance of being Consistently Not Stupid) – 25iq
As another example of Munger’s inversion approach, a very effective way to be smart, is to consistently not be dumb. The good news about this approach is that is it easier to not be dumb than it is to be smart since you can often simply avoid certain types of decisions and activities that are ripe with opportunities to demonstrate that you are not smart. Munger gives some example here: “Just avoid things like racing trains to the crossing, doing cocaine, etc. Develop good mental habits.” “A lot of success in life and business comes from knowing what you want to avoid: early death, a bad marriage, etc.” With regard to financial matters, you should avoid things like buying assets with a 200 page prospectus, or services from highly commissioned salespeople. Don’t attend the “free” dinner paid for by a salesperson or the “free” weekend stay in a time share.
psychology  advice  heuristics  tips-and-tricks  finance  mentat 
14 hours ago by kmt
Most texts and speech utterances are produced on the spot, by a particular writer or speaker, translating meaning into a linear arrangement of words. The final products of this process tend to be amazingly unique: you usually only need to google a short string of words in order to find the single source that they come from. (Try it – you rarely need more than four or five words, even very common words, and a whole sentence is usually overkill.) How incredible that most short strings are never repeated! Meanings are repeated over and over, expressed in different ways, but their manner of expression varies. However, there is a class of texts and speech utterances that are interesting precisely because they are boilerplate: they are reproduced over and over, pretty much verbatim, by different writers and speakers.

One class of these texts is the chain letter: a document whose content implores the human reader to reproduce it (or to share it on social media). But some of the most widely copied texts and speech utterances do not themselves ask to be copied. These pieces of boilerplate language are copied verbatim for reasons outside the context of the texts themselves. For example, boilerplate language in legal contracts is included not because the language says “include me in your contracts or you will be visited by the Litigation Demon;” rather, they are included because specific linear arrangements of words have been judged in the past to have a specific legal effect. Historically, in contract law, it was difficult to tell when a late performance still counted as performance. Courts held that the boilerplate incantation “time is of the essence” demonstrated that a performance had to be on time to count, and that exact string words still makes its way into contracts in order to ward off claims that late performance is good enough.

Boilerplate code is used for a similar reason: in some languages and programming environments, snippets of code must be reused over and over because they are not part of the default assumptions of the interpreting layer, even though they are part of the default intent of the writer.
writing  rhetoric  argument  advice  history  dev 
14 hours ago by kmt

Copy this bookmark:

to read