Both good and bad responses to successful terrorist attacks threaten government credibility, simply because they were successful. The key is for a government to prevent them from being successful in the first place.

Only bad disaster responses make administrations look pretty bad.

That would imply that it would only be worth trying to prepare for hurricanes, because work there would improve public reception, while terrorist attacks would go badly no matter what you did.

Unless you prevent them from being successful in the first place.

As a side note, I wonder if there's also a bias that human minds are more easily controlled than forces of nature. That may also come into play here.

It’s harder to convince people that your suppressing imaginary hurricanes

But FEMA can't prevent attacks, they only show up after something happens so there’a no incentive for the agency to focus on terrorism from that angle.

>There's a reason people end up in these ruts to begin with.

Perhaps there is the lack of self-awareness that dopamine comes into play. This is where the (effective) simplicity of this article comes into the picture.

This begs to normalized and sold as a package for both providers and consumers.

The problem is that this effectively requires that you set up all the equipment in a place and make people come to that.

Not a great thing in the middle of Covid.

However, once Covid passes, perhaps WeWork should try this with all their real estate to avoid going bankrupt.

That's an interesting idea with WeWork.

I'd think that despite variations in environments in a home, there are either 1) enough accommodating tools to normalize (e.g., lights that have a variety of settings) or 2) the majority of the processes required to handle the variations are figured out (e.g., in consistently poor lighting, you need package B instead of package A).

I see some hardware packages for home studios going on sale, but nothing to the level of hardware/software integration necessary for the most effective online instruction/discussion.

>but that is part of life

Makes one wonder whether technology can help here. Seems that, so far, there is no substitute for direct experience.

The context of the comments matter. Just saying...

Y Combinator Requests for Startups: https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/

survival != (winning a competition || getting titles || getting awards)

But time != energy + motivation. Also time != money. I realize it won't be as eye-catching, but showing time wasted rather than money is more direct and truthful. Then I suppose the problem is that apps like that already exist...

Agree, but time & money definitely correlate, so I think it's fine to have it as money for motivation.

>Maybe it's possible to do both?

I agree, and I think that's part of Ryan Holiday's thesis. That also happens to be the message in the book Crucial Conversations.

>Regardless of the fact if it's even possible to read that quickly, what about retaining and revising what you learnt? Especially important if you're reading non-fiction.

Exactly this. # of books as a goal seems like a poor choice of metric. But perhaps readers new to books have to start somewhere that's easy to measure, even if it's not a great metric.