Not every subject has simple explanations.

In math or theoretical fields it’s not unheard of to have young professors. Terence Tao was full professor at 24. Wolfram at 21

She could still do a few years of PhD training and still be a super young prof like those two.

At 17 she’s so young that a uni hiring her would need to think about child labor laws

Sounds like asking for the public to buy them out .

Also suggests 100% WFH is not as good as some weekly face to face time if part of the goal is to keep people motivated and disciplined

I feel like I grind harder if anything when I work from home. Just because you aren’t physically in the same place doesn’t mean there isn’t community.

I do occasionally do onsites that are valuable for community building so perhaps it’s more 98% wfh

Honestly I go to the office and it's just full of people chattering about non-work things and generally not doing work. It's demotivating. WFH days I'm far more focused and productive.

Also open floor plans suck

WFH does not mean you can't have face to face in today's age

"Face to face" is a protected term that means meeting IRL.

Come on let's not twist the meaning of phrases (assuming you're saying a video call is "face to face")

It’s also survivorship bias. Given that a start up has explosive growth, it way more likely that they are amoral.

The ones who play the game with integrity and morals never have the type of growth that makes headlines. But I’m sure they exist.

That really doesn't follow. Explosive growth guarantees amorality? What sin is inherit to success? Has envy become so embedded in our thinking that success alone is proof of guilt? Or is it just Original Sin style bullshit where everone is automatically guilty?

Far from guaranteed, but to be a moral founder you now have a second goal alongside growth. Inevitably the two will be in conflict.

Didn’t say guaranteed, I said more likely.

To succeed, you have to execute many things well and avoid bad luck. Add to this an extra constraint that one also needs integrity or morals and it will drastically reduce your success rate.

My statement will be true as long as having integrity or morals could hinder growth in some way.

Please name a few such places

Off the top of my head, Costa Rica, Bhutan, Canada, Norway/Sweden?

A good read: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/costa-rica-enli...

Switzerland... the best actually long term sustainable and working capitalism I've seen.

All freedom US craves so much for (and much more) while stronger social state than next to nothing US has for its weaker part of society

Any communist country of your preference.

Why simulate? We can already do it experimentally

In my field, we're always wanting to see what will happen when DNA is changed in a human pancreatic beta cell. We kind of have a protocol for producing things that look like human pancreatic beta cells from human stem cells, but we're not really sure that they are really going to behave like real human pancreatic beta cells for any particular DNA change, and we have examples of cases where they definitely do not behave the same.

You can't see what's going on in most cases.

This summarizes what irks me about the community.

They use technical terms (eg expected value, KL divergence) in their verbal reasoning only to sound rational, but don’t ever mean to use those terms technically.

The core is that hyper rationalists mistaken their model of the world with the world itself. They then lecture with confidence their opinions in the real world, ignoring the hairy details and unknown unknowns in the real world.