I love this but I think you'll be surprised at your success rate. Everyone is struggling with this, not just you. Right on the heels of covid we were debating whether to have a NYE party or just go to a friend's house for a low key thing. We were paralyzed a bit feeling like, why we weren't invited to other parties ourselves? Won't everyone already be busy doing other stuff? In the end my wife took the leap and invited a ton of neighbors and friends. Guess what?? Almost everyone showed up! Which means all those people were going to be sitting at home feeling bad and wondering the same thing. You just need to believe and get over it, people want to hang out. We've all just gotten out of the habit.
In my experience, the problem is not a low success rate, but the burnout from being the only person that invites people to do things. At a certain point you want to see some reciprocation to create community. It can definitely happen, but a lot of folks still fall back on the habits. You have to invite and then also start asking people who's gonna host the next one and get them on the hook, and then not burnout from being a constant organizer :)
1. Hyper-perfect social media / television setting "the best" expectations for an event.
2. Decreased knowledge of how to host a gathering. It's not rocket science, but throwing one the first time can seem daunting. And throwing one well does take skill. E.g. icebreakers, identifying and facilitating the right introductions by highlighting mutual interests, making sure wallflowers have a good time, defusing tensions, food, etc.
3. Decreased American tolerance for and ability to handle awkwardness, and there's always going to be some awkwardness in social interactions.
4. Decreased public/accessible American meeting places. There used to (< 2000) be a plethora of low-cost, broadly-accessible spaces that could serve as training wheels for events (handling food, furnishings, cleaning, etc). They've essentially all been privatized, commercialized, and optimized to turn seats -- think real coffee shops disappearing in favor of Starbucks.
- lower expectations (my own and everyone else's). I work out the bare minimum that would work for the event and do that. People need food. They don't need music.
- tell people how to contribute: "bring snacks and drinks", ask one specific person to bring ice. when people arrive I often give specific tasks: "can you find someone to help move the table and chairs into the other room", "can you sort out music"
- do it the same way every time so it's less mentally taxing
Ah, success through lowered expectations! This has been my mantra for the last 40 years, and it has worked surprisingly well. I started out with a New Year’s resolution to not intentionally consume significant quantities of human flesh, and have worked my way up from there.
It may seem ridiculous, but it’s a form of stoicism adjacent philosophy that presumes nominally more control over one’s circumstances, and it has had excellent outcomes for me. Ratchet forward but expect modest clicks and be delighted when something goes right or someone comes through.
Well you know, probably everyone is constantly swallowing some of their own dead skin cells. Nobody's perfect. So I'm not going to feel too guilty when I cheat and buy a human-balogna sandwich every now and then, especially if they're free range.
Yeah, the phrase "significant quantities of" is really throwing the whole comment for an unfortunate loop. Maybe "I choose not to steal any vehicles" or "I choose not to commit fraud" and work up from _there_ instead of somehow trying to faux-normalize cannibalism. Very strange indeed.
Well, I added that after realizing that it wasn’t uncommon to accidentally eat small parts of your mouth, fingertips, things like that in the course of a year, and I was not about to fail in my quest to reject cannibalism for the year. I mean, for me, that would have been a new low.
It’s surprisingly difficult to not eat a little human flesh. People nibble on loose skin and the insides of thier mouth a little, you end up swallowing blood, and there is often a tiny bit of human biomass in processed food.
Ergo the “significant” qualifier. Imagine the sense of defeat to fail in your New Year’s resolution to not resort to cannibalism by years end… so you have to be careful how you define your test case.
If I were a cannibal, it would have been an ambitious resolution, but the whole point was success through low expectations.
But fair enough, people tend to be touchy about people eating people, and rightly so. No way that ends well as a mainstream practice.
I'm assuming this is referencing "taking a pound of flesh" generally meaning to being cruel in demanding what you're owed (from Shakespeare Merchant of Venice). Presumably they're tired of unloading on people for not following thru or contributing. Doesn't seem like the best use here, particularly so indirectly.
Nope, I meant literally not consuming human flesh as food. After years of unsuccessful New Year’s resolutions, I decided to pick one I was sure I could stick to. Success through lowered expectations.
I mean, it is kind of a bit, in a way, but I really did announce to my social group my resolution, about 40 years ago, and I’ve been ratcheting it up gradually ever since. I have kept my public and official New Year’s resolutions for 37 years running. I’m up to “intentional and senseless acts of violence that end in the injury of innocents“.
You may scoff, but senselessness is highly contextually dependent and can easily apply to something that seemed rational under the fog of circumstance. Thats actually not that easy to promise without forsaking the option of violence altogether, which I am not at liberty to do, since I have a family to protect.
It’s a slow, intentional process. I don’t want to risk overreaching. Still, they are worthwhile goals. Low-hanging fruit is still fruit.
The useful thing to me has been to expect little from people and life in general, but a lot of myself. Then be delighted when things go as they should, or when people come through. It’s a contagious positivity masquerading as cynicism, or maybe the other way around, I’m not sure… but it allows me to focus on my role in things, my choices, my actions, and reactions to the external world. It is stoicism adjacent.
The New Year’s resolutions are mostly an advertising campaign for the overall philosophy, really, by promising people easy success in something that is often a struggle, and illuminating the fact that we choose our successes and failures by how we view external circumstances, not so much by the circumstances themselves.
I find that the more a group does things, the more everyone chills out. It's like the expectations come from a fear of being judged and from uncertainty. When everyone has information from the last ten events then you don't need to stress anymore, because everyone knows how this one will go and they've all judged one another already.
It helps to remember that you are competing with: no event.
If there are other parties happening and you're trying to make a better one, by all means, go all out. But mostly people in their 40s aren't going to many house events, so they're just happy to be somewhere with people. They don't care that you didn't decorate or sweep the floor or prepare an elaborate meal. You made soup and they're thrilled.
I'd also add that first-event nerves (on host and attendee sides) can be an uncertainty problem. No one wants to misunderstand the dress code, social code, etc. Once people have been together, there are now group norms that assuage that (aka "I know what's acceptable to wear and talk about").
Absolutely. I throw “open houses” with open hours. There will be some food and company and some booze. Probably music. But in the end everyone brings what they can and it rules.
Granted it’s still a lot of effort but it’s low key and I find people prefer that unless it gets enough momentum to become a “thing” haha
Agree with this approach. I've hosted a lot of "work adjacent" events over the years, with no real idea what I'm doing. I've always focused on the intent (why do I want to attend?) and a few crux details; everything else tends to work out or is just not that important. It seems to be one of the areas where "fake it until you make it" not only works but might be superior to ultra-planning.
Once you've got the gist down, try and find one thing that you can go a little overboard on; it makes it very memorable. Examples: I made a big pot of home-made chili once, and another time we did (what looked like) an extravagant nacho bar. It was both better and way cheaper than typical event food.
Definitely enlist an accomplice, but be aware you likely need to (appear to) be the mastermind.
> I've always focused on the intent (why do I want to attend?) and a few crux details; everything else tends to work out or is just not that important
This was my primary takeaway from some time spent doing higher-end catering front of house. You'd be amazed what absolute fuckups can occur on non-critical stuff... and no one even notices.
(Possibly the bride, but that's why we had dedicated bride handlers to appropriately message that kind of stuff)
I recently moved into a very upper class neighborhood (pacific heights) and enrolled my child in the neighborhood private school.
The social hosting skill I’ve observed and and able to do as well is extraordinarily high. People throw parties, know how to act, are cordial and polite and seem to reasonably enjoy each others company while also teaching their children the same.
This is how I remember mere middle class parents acting in the late 90s and early 2000s but my fellow millennials and z seem to be completely incapable of.
One huge aspect I’ve noticed is that it’s wildly expensive in time and money to host. An open cocktail night cost me nearly 3000 dollars to host. I can imagine this would not be common for Gen Z these days.
That seems to be a very narrow definition of a party. I have friends over for pizza and board games. We've had ice cream making parties. Cheese dinners.
I am a millennial and my parents did no events, since they both worked and had long commutes. I wonder when the middle class entertainment slowed down—I want to guess it’s when you have more two income households, that don’t earn enough to hire home help.
Minimum wages have not increased in decades. Cost of living has increased a lot meanwhile, and the rich vs poor divide has increased. So lower class and middle class are suffering, while upper class have become richer from their labors. In earlier generations, the middle class could work for some years and afford to buy a house (on mortgage). But these days, middle class cannot afford a house, they live in rented apartments. Hosting parties is the least of their priorities, when they are struggling with the monthly bills.
I don't think it's that, my parents weren't two income and never had friends or did events or social things and barely left the house.
My mom would constantly complain she used to be a social butterfly but having kids "ruined" that for her. Which never made sense to me, it's not like she ever interacted with us much.
Christmas dinner for my immediate family almost $500. That was pretty much dinner and our favorite appetizers but does not count the liquor and wine. This was just me, my ex, five kids, a daughter in law and grandchild. I can see getting to 3k pretty fast.
How did you spend $500 on dinner for 9 people? I hosted Christmas dinner for my family with about 10 adults and 10 kids, and it cost at most $200 divided between 5 families, alcohol included.
Dinner for twenty people at $200 is farcical in the US unless your family owns a farm or something. Going to need more details because I'm inclined to say that's bullshit.
Beer and liquor alone would blow past that figure.
No farm is needed. It's not that hard. I spent about: $25 on a chicken dish (chicken from Costco + ingredients), $15 for baked mac & cheese (ingredients from Meijer), $20 on ciders, $40 on 2 bottles of Cherry Republic wine. The other family members: $20 on raw vegetables and cheese platter; $20 on fruit; $10 potato dish; $10 vegetable dish; $15 on dessert; $15 on salad. Oh and $2 on juice boxes for the little kids (~4 from a juice box 40 pack from Costco). I'm estimating what the others spent, but that's what it would cost me to make the same dishes. That totals to $192.
If your version of hosting is "let's outsource it and just open the wallet", then, yes, sure, you can spend a lot of money. It ain't hosting, though. You failed the "what if I just replaced you with a bank account" test.
GP said 'open bar with 2 bartenders'. I.e. commercially priced drinks, and staff. Did you have those? If so, pro tip, next time just get a few cases of various drinks, plonk them on a table with a bunch of glasses (rented, if need be) and call it good. People can't drink soft drink for more than, say, 3 USD worth in an afternoon; and even if you served 12 years Glenfiddich to everyone including the children, enough of it to knock them all out, you still wouldn't have spend more than $1000.
So yeah still wondering what sort of party you threw. I mean, yeah it's easily possible to spend that much, but it's also possible to do it for much less and you don't even need to really try.
That honestly seems quite cheap for 'very upper class' where I imagine everyone's suited and booted, dressed up for the evening, possibly some live music, etc.
People surprised by Mr. $3000-cocktail party's expenses are forgetting about class and wealth differences.
Up to a point, expenses are elastic and proportionate to income. Across different incomes, things like "dinner" or "cocktail" mean (and cost) very different things, to the point that someone on either end of the scale doesn't even know what is on the other end. A very wealthy individual might not know about the $1.50 Costco dog, and a less wealthy individual won't know about the $10,000 bottle of cab sauv (okay I'm making that up, I don't know either, but you get the point).
If you have $100k you'll make do with that, if you have 10x more, most people will find ways to scale the expenses accordingly. If you have 1,000x more, that's just wasted cash that does nothing for society, but that's another discussion...
Also bog standard middle shelf cocktail liquor, wine, glassware, food, and additional (forks, knives, small plates, food prep) for 50 people is gonna cost 3k almost anywhere.
I was highlighting partially how it's just generally expensive to host the first time a large group.
I know the US is ludicrously expensive, but 3000 dollars for a cocktail party? Did you have a couple of hundred guests? The kind of party where you can lock in friendships, have meaningful conversations and personally play host tops out around 30 people. At those kind of numbers, you really don't need to hire a staff - you can provide canapés and make cocktails and or have a friend so at very reasonable cost. Source - I had hundreds of (often fairly raucous parties) at my old apartment. Alas I no longer live in a basement so my entertaining options are much more limited.
I was not looking to 'lock in life long friendships.' I was hosting a cocktail party as a favor for our school at my home and was obligated to ensure the overall experience was somewhat nicer than 'a wild party at an apartment' as fun as that is as well. These are somewhat normal things as part of a knit-community adult life. You have distant people come as well as close friends and open your home. That is ... hosting.
Partly what I was trying to point out is how 'adult life' gets complicated and expensive and most people are understandably just opting out. But at the same time, whats going out with it is just basic manners and social habits -- which is unfortunate.
My point stands - if anything a cocktail party is potentially less expensive to host since you know in advance numbers and preferences.
> These are somewhat normal things as part of a knit-community adult life.
As something of an adult myself (I'm 46), I'm well aware of how community functions. I'm also aware of the 'keeping up with the jones' nature of wealth and how corrosive that is to community - being entirely founded on the selective and exclusive nature of spending.
My contention stands, there is no need whatsoever to spend thousands on a cocktail party. One doesn't need to 'opt out' of social life. It's perfectly possible to serve cocktails yourself, to buy 'off the shelf' brands rather than expensive whiskey etc. It's perfectly possible to prepare your own food, or work with a chef who organises 'super club' style catering, which does not cost thousands.
It's a choice to live this way, not a fate. And doubtless it affords status among other high worth individuals - just as it dooms you to a life of fruitless comparison and ostentatiousness.
This can be said of literally anyone living in the first
World.
I find it deeply laughable anyone would stand on a soap box who lives in a modern first world environment and lecture like this while not seeing the irony that they do it themselves at their level as well.
Please. Stop. Look around. And maybe visit a place where you see how the other half of the planet lives. Likely your world is wildly ostentatious and unnecessary comparatively.
The plank in your eye before your neighbor and all that.
I mean I've spent a couple hundo at Costco buying booze and food and paper supplies for a party I hosted and THAT was flabbergasting. How the fuck do spend three grand on cocktails? Is it like all top shelf liquor or something?
It's a level of excess whose loss is probably a net positive for society. I would argue that there are very, very few cases where such a level is justified.
> 3. Decreased American tolerance for and ability to handle awkwardness, and there's always going to be some awkwardness in social interactions.
I wonder how much of this is due to our ever increasing sense of obligation to be "performing" all the time. Maybe increased by the perpetual presence of social media and the habits and mindset that both creating and consuming for it creates.
I thought that originally, but I actually think it's more experiential/exposure-side.
Hypothesis: modern society (especially apps) has decreased the amount of realtime, face-to-face social interactions at all stages of life, which has eventually manifested into a decreased average (there are still some social people!) capability to deal with social awkwardness. And consequently less comfort/appetite for putting oneself in situations where it might happen.
I don’t think it’s this. I’ve lived in NYC recently and people there don’t have tolerance for shit behaviors either and you’re surrounded by people all the time.
It’s due to people having higher standards than before and being bifurcated on every issue. There is deep polarization and tribalism within American culture.
Everyone consumes different content and there’s very little homogeneity within our culture. Like… Americans are more diverse than ever in terms of their thoughts and behaviors. They genuinely have little in common compared to many other cultures.
I'll buy that, especially in NYC-like urban environments where frequency of exposure is definitely not the issue. Suburbs and rural may be different.
Part of the increased diversity is unavoidable due to technological changes eroding previous touchpoints. E.g. limited broadcast TV becoming cable becoming streaming.
But there does seem to be an increasing dearth of the logical tonic: discussion-facilitating diverse spaces. Places where people of different opinions can mingle, there are strong social norms around mutually productive conversation (and enforcement to discourage / weed out poison apples?), and that are open to new people.
> Hyper-perfect social media / television setting "the best" expectations for an event.
My approach around this is suggesting the idea to people up front and then throwing everyone into a WhatsApp chat and laying down the plan. Anyone who can't join gets removed/leaves. No one expects a whatsapp group to be a refined VIP experience. It's just people getting together and sharing an experience.
Having moved countries and needing to start up a new friend group, things like Meetup or Facebook groups help a lot. There are _many_ people out there who are looking to meet people.
For throwing a party, my general rule of thumb is expect 50% of people to turn up.
It used to be predominantly women who did it. It was part of being a housewife. Joy of Cooking even has an entire chapter dedicated to hosting a dinner party. But now women work for billionaires too. Nobody has time to work for themselves.
This. My wife and I built our social life when we moved countries, and we had a group of friends that we'd meet every week or two. But only when we invited them. No-one else in the group ever organised anything. It got really tiring. We could not get anyone else to organise a meet, they always had reasons why they couldn't organise one (but could turn up to it fine). We tried a bunch of things, but nothing worked - if we didn't organise it, it didn't happen. We ended up moving away and the whole social group collapsed and stopped meeting.
I think some people are just the center of gravity, and that particular friend circle revolves around them. Before COVID, we had a friend group that would hang out fairly regularly. Once I left (for a job, not fleeing the city), none of them hung out without me. Everyone was friendly with each other, but everyone also had their own lives going on with their own friends and other circles. While I was the glue for that circle, it wasn't like everyone just stayed at home having pity parties when I wasn't around.
My anecdote might have limited relevance here, but I think it's something worth considering.
Do any of those friends organise anything for any of their other friend groups?
I get the feeling that some people organise, while most people don't. I haven't seen the situation where a person organises stuff for one group, but not for another group. It always tends to be the same people doing the organising for all their friends. At least that's what I've observed, I'd welcome any other observations.
That attitude, the some people are leeches, to me is part of the problem. If you go in with the expectation that others owe you something or they're bad people, you're only going to be going down the path of not doing it.
You'll need to get over the idea of this being a shared load.
Every community has one or two people that are "the engine" and constantly keep people reconnecting. Has nothing to do with social media, or Covid - it's always been the case as far as I can think back (and that's the early 80's)
Yes, you can push and prod people to occasionally host, but that's also a ton of work.
We've noticed this in our neighborhood. Once a year we host a few families before going out trick or treating with our kids. We buy a bunch of pizza so everyone can eat and don't ask for the other families to kick in.
We were hoping the other families would reciprocate, and maybe invite us to some of their gatherings (especially two families who hang out together quite a bit.) So far it hasn't happened at all, they just receive our graciousness and move on immediately.
Potluck parties help. Then they, generally, at least partly participated. Some people will just bring soda or chips or beer but that's still better than 0.
So you set something up to weasel your way into other "families" friendships by doing a specific thing and then judging their response/non-response? Like A/B testing humans.
Perhaps some people can sense this stuff subconsciously. Relationships should build naturally.
As somebody who does host and doesn’t get a ton of reciprocity, the problem isn’t burn out (because I love doing it). The problem is second guessing whether this is something the group enjoys and whether they are just humoring me.
I also love hosting - but what I’m really trying to do is have particles collide and form bonds outside the larger events. Even smaller scale gatherings, game nights, or hell even a couples dinner invite would be a nice change of pace.
The lack of reciprocation is a tough one. I think it also helps sometimes to understand that not everyone is good at being the mother goose or the facilitator, especially if someone else is already good at doing it, and it's not because they lack interest or don't care.
I have some friends who very easily lose themselves in their work and the stress around it and if I wasn't the one checking in and basically pulling them away, I'd miss out on what are easily my favourite days out and it has no impact on how much we enjoy each other's company. Maybe one day it changes but until then I'm there for them.
That said, there are of course times where it's better to just let go. But those people were probably never that important to you in the first place.
>In my experience, the problem is not a low success rate, but the burnout from being the only person that invites people to do things.
This is what mostly happened with me, I just got burned out from always having to be the one to organise everything or nothing would happen, which is what ended up happening after I stopped, we just stopped meeting up and eventually grew completely apart.
Now, I'm in a completely different country and I don't even have anyone's contacts anymore. But that's been life for me, people come and people go, never to stay.
I've accepted it by now, it can still hurt from time to time, but it is what it is, one should not force their will onto others, I believe.
It’s easy to find reasons to talk yourself out of action. Maybe you’ll get burned out, maybe you won’t. But if you never try you’ll never know. And you’ll definitely miss out on something special
try and build "the community" outside of the effort of one or a few people. This is hard. My example: we've built some quality dirt jumps for bike riders, and while there's a core group of ~10 people, you don't need all - or any - of them to come out for success. The location is the host and either a regularly scheduled or casual event keeps the community going. If people stop, the community will die and we'll move on.
I sometimes wonder about this, I have a friend who does most of the organizing for parties or whatever. My sense is that there are a few different kinds of people, among those are people who, if they didn't organize parties, there wouldn't really be much of a platform for hanging out for them and others like them, while others are completely isolated, don't organize and don't have any other third space, and others yet have many smaller interactions from many other parts of life that don't necessitate a larger meetup necessarily. If you're an "organizer" type, my guess is that the people you'd hope reciprocate fall into the latter camp; they're happy to show up and have a good time, but they probably have a bunch of other things to explore that for some reason they haven't felt you'd be into... or a bunch of other possible reasons. Asking them to host a party is asking them to fabricate a social setting from thin air, but maybe they just organically don't find that to be something they need to do.
For me, I'll host something for a small group if I get some inspiration, but on a week to week basis I'm often in extremely social third-spaces, supplemented by larger parties (probably bi-weekly). My effort is often best spent meeting people for deliberate, intimate, outdoor sports adventures or coffee hangouts, but the same person I know who tends to organize larger parties doesn't really feel like someone who'd be into these; they can't really hold a conversation 1 on 1 for very long, and they're not super curious or vulnerable or athletic in the way that's necessary to engage in those as much. He's a regimented, scheduled, impatient, person. They often need a sort of fabricated social vehicle (also likes to decorate and host), whereas I get nearly all of my socializing from incidentally being in social space.
I think it's fine to be either of course. It's ok that my organizer friend doesn't like heights, and so I won't invite him to climb mountains, he likes hosting parties, so I try to attend as many as I can.
Note that I don't mean the non-organizer (me) is just passively socializing, it's just that they have different catalysts built into the things they do that extend into socializing easily. I'm DMing 1 or 2 friends, multiple times a week, to do something we both enjoy or just chat while walking around the city. While parties and hosted things are neat, they're just not very good platforms for depth.
Just as well, I do try and be inviting to everyone who'd like to come out and do other things, in general it's important to reciprocate, but I'm not hosting a party just because someone else did.
Not fun part is that the longer you stay at your home comfort zone the bigger social anxiety grows.
Other annoying parts are if you fight off anxiety and do go out you most likely will run into minor inconvenience like some Karen honking on you or making a fuss in front of you when you’re waiting in line. Minor inconvenience like that refuels social anxiety.
Eh, I don't think EVERYONE is struggling with this. I am an introvert, and have no desire to go out and do more things with friends. I get enough socialization with my wife and kids, and don't really have the desire to do more things.
I used to think that way. Then, divorce, custody battle and the dark abyss. No home, nobody to talk to; just silence, loneliness, general apathy of the world around you. It's the trap of the middle-aged man: to focus on work, invest in family, and hope these things will be a constant because you are doing the right thing. We don't have enough emotional bonds, don't know how to create them, and if the wife leaves and takes the kids, there's nothing left.
I'd use this as an opportunity to do something exciting with your life (if finances permit). Go live in Asia and do the nomad thing, if you're lonely there are a ton of Filipinas who want nothing more than to be a good wife and provide for their family. Try to start a business, take up some kind of art and make an honest effort to get GOOD at it, etc.
Same lack of desire to go out and I don't even have wife and kids, or even friends for that matter; just one friend I see once a week. Whatever the appeal/reward of socialization is for most people, I don't get it.
Is this really about Tiktok or about AI and how people are consuming the web? Used to be all web, then web+Tiktok,etc, now only AI+Tiktok, etc? I think I go to normal websites way less than I used to. Maybe everyone is doing that?
Impinj is a leading RAIN RFID provider and Internet of Things pioneer. We’re inventing ways to connect every thing to the Internet — including retail apparel, retail general merchandise, healthcare items, automobile parts, airline baggage, food and much more. With more than 100 billion items connected to date, and multiple Fortune 500 enterprises around the world using our platform, we solve for a better understanding of our world. If it’s a thing, we’re working to connect it.
Our team owns engineering and design of the cloud platform that will open RFID to thousands of new companies and use cases by making RFID adoption 100x easier than it is today. We're building a high-caliber software team from the ground up with uncompromising standards for quality, velocity, and close, cross-functional collaboration. You'll work across the full technology stack (frontend, backend, mobile, databases, event sourcing, MQTT, PKI/certificates, IoT) alongside engineers from diverse disciplines including design, firmware, and silicon.
If you're excited to work with a phenomenal team and make high-impact contributions to a thoughtfully built product that solves big, real-world problems, please check out the job description in the link below.
Here is the big question: How profitable would this be for big pharma if it really worked? If the answer isn't an enormous number, this isn't going anywhere beyond the researchers who published their work.
If the cost to the UK is reported to be 42 billion per year [0] (need to do more verification on this) and I quickly couldn’t see a figure for the US, then I believe there is an argument for a nationalisation policy where the government writes a very large cheque to the company and then makes the treatment free to everyone.
A bit socialisation of health care for some but the benefits to the economy may well be worth the trade alone, never mind the individual benefits
The problem is, you're not just writing a large cheque in return for a working treatment. You're writing a large cheque to roll the dice on some research that might (and probably won't, statistically) result in a working treatment. So you need a very large cheque so that you can fund multiple research projects in the hopes that one of them will give you a treatment. Even then, there's the possibility that none of them will work and you've got nothing to show for any of the money spent.
To play the devils advocate, does that take into the "cost" to the government if pensioners are living longer because Alzheimers was cured? I could easily see this turning into a debate behind politicians closed doors of
"If "x" % of the population has their life is extended an average of "y" years, how much more does that cost in pension payouts over the life of the individual vs the medical savings from curing Alzheimers?"
lol, I love this take! I honestly have never used Svelt but you hear so much fanboi love for it I assumed it actually was awesome! If Svelt is a hipster scam, that would be hilarious. Anyone else able to corroborate or refute this claim?
I personally like React with just React Router 7 in framework mode (Remix). So simple, so intuitive, just works, paper thing abstractions over stuff everyone already knows how to do. (Next.js OTOH I do not love)
I went from react to next and back to react+tanstack (with vite), best setup I've used thus far (having tried angular a while ago when it was contender and vue more recently)
React is where industry mind share and energy is today, regardless of developer opinions
Why the downvotes? That jobs will be lost is fact. Does this represent an increase in wealth concentration? Obviously. Is that a net bad? I don't know, let's discuss instead of silencing people.
"Claude recalls by only referring to your raw conversation history. There are no AI-generated summaries or compressed profiles—just real-time searches through your actual past chats."
AKA, Claude is doing vector search. Instead of asking it about "Chandni Chowk", ask it about "my coworker I was having issues with" and it will miss. Hard. No summaries or built up profiles, no knowledge graphs. This isn't an expert feature, this means it just doesn't work very well.
Lol, are you serious? Can you elaborate on your thinking here? Are you suggesting Trump imposed tariffs out of some altruistic goal of reducing waste or the social impacts of consumerism?? That can't be right. What is the motivation in your mind?
reply