What do meditation people do with their great powers of attention? Besides for naval gazing of course.

Insight under concentration is a mechanism for durable neural rewiring.

Ever notice how some people don't get 'stuck' in their negative habits and brain loops? Like they can just let them go. If they get feedback from the world they can take it seriously and act on it, instead of digging in their heels and getting resentful. Being able to do this reliably and under stress in the wide variety of life circumstances, and getting closer and closer to doing it in real-time, is the goal.

Sufficiently-developed concentration gives you access to the jhanas, which are extremely blissful states of consciousness. Having reliable access to high valence reduces your need to seek pleasure in less wholesome things (drugs, food, twitter, etc.)

Sufficiently-developed attention gives you insight into how your brain is constructing what you perceive as reality, leading to a reduction in ego, permanent reduction in baseline suffering, and a pervading sense of unity with the rest of the universe.

I think it can help you relax. A lot of meditation involves focus on breathing, can keep your heart rate down, etc., and I think that may be good for general health.

But I don't think it should be confounded with medical advice or treated as causal to neurodiversity or called mandatory. Probably why that person is getting downvoted.

What do all the jungle civilizations and any possible intelligent extraterrestrial life do?

Stay away from us to their own benefit, of course.

You should study autism and the people around you instead of your own navel. Clearly you don't at all understand what it is to be autistic or ADHD.

Have you ever tried talking to an autistic person?

Its gotta be in there - that print (and 35 others believe it or not) are from hokusai's collection: Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji

Up until today I thought it was a tsunami painting

I'm not sure exactly what kind of point you are making but the valuations are at least nominally based on the expected value of the business far into the future and aren't comparable to, say, purchases done over a year despite both being denoted in dollars.

That might happen for a year or two but it's not like they're getting refreshers priced at 180. After paying all the taxes, and factoring in the HCoL area they probably live in, I doubt many people are retiring early on that. Very few high earning people would quit their high paying job so they could live a "normal" life and worry about bills and expenditures.

But they were fine with the hiring in the first place. Making mistakes is allowed - it's worse to pretend like everything you did in the past was flawless.

Also, Zuck controls 61% of the vote for Meta. Investors knew that it was his show when they invested

Why does the market need to acquire and represent novel/useful information?

It's ordinary gambling, but more in line with poker than with roulette. Theoretically there could be some skill that comes into play in predicting it, but there is also a large element of luck. This is just an entertainment product.

There's absolutely zero evidence Trump was behind those oil trades.

Deepseek is distilled from other SOTA models. Without them, deepseek would not be possible.

There might be these wizards, but probably most of them are dudes who were attached to something successful 15 years ago and have been riding out their time at an inflated level.

In the US, ageism is allowed as long it doesn't discriminate against older people(45 years old or older I think?). You're allowed to discriminate against youth all you want.

Offering a buyout is in no way discriminatory since it is voluntary. If it was forced buyout, then yes it would be discriminatory

> In the US, ageism is allowed as long it doesn't discriminate against older people(45 years old or older I think?). You're allowed to discriminate against youth all you want.

I think it's 40 https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination. So for 40 or less years + X years worked to be more than 70 they'd have to work there 30 years starting at 10 years old or younger. Granted, some of the decisions I saw Microsoft make do look like they were made by 10 year olds, so maybe there is some truth there.

> Offering a buyout is in no way discriminatory since it is voluntary. If it was forced buyout, then yes it would be discriminatory

Still, what if they offered it based on gender, religious belief, or race? Would that look just as good or bad of an offer.

>Still, what if they offered it based on gender, religious belief, or race? Would that look just as good or bad of an offer.

Those would be illegal. Based on age + tenure is not. Simple as that

But in terms of optics, I think this comes out positively. They're basically letting people retire early with a generous buyout offer that they are not required to take instead of just laying these people off with or without severance, which they'd be within their legal rights to do

By that logic a job offer is in no way discriminatory since it is voluntary?

Yes, that is exactly my point. "You were our only female employee, so we're offering you VR"

Oh, I see. The difference there, I think, is that you're illegally discriminating against men by doing that, which is not allowed. However, by law, you can't illegally discriminate against youth, so it's ok.

...there are a lot of answers on the "why not?"

"Hey, John. I see here that you didn't volunteer to retire. I admire your dedication to your job and to the company. However, I just got a troubling message from HR about your recent performance/allegations of misconduct/social media postings/<etc insert other BS excuse that HR makes up etc> and I need you to come with me to the board room so that we can sort this out. Don't bring anything with you. Just leave it on your desk. That'd be grrrrreat..."