There are also yogis who claim they can levitate, read minds, or bring dead babies back to life.
You don't need to be a yogi to do those things. There are men and women (even kids and teenagers) who can read your mind like a page. Advanced ones can know what you're thinking before you're even aware of what that thought is. And they don't even have to be looking at you. It's 360 degree vision. Distance is no barrier. People who can read minds know to respect your space, because they know it's against spiritual law to violate your psychic space.
People who have developed the ability to bring the dead back to life will not do it, because they know there's a reason why somebody had to die. Why mess with the cycle of life?
Well yes, you see i can time travel, but I don't want to break causality. So I won't use my power. But you said worship me and give me money, because I time travel!
> People who have developed the ability to bring the dead back to life will not do it, because they know there's a reason why somebody had to die.
That must be terribly reassuring to the families of car crash victims.
You can make all the extraordinary claims you want if you never have to prove it, and no one should believe you until you do. You're basically just wasting your breath and letting everyone know you believe in fairy tales.
> Live is not just made up of a series of random events.
citation needed
You can make all the claims you want. Everything is being made as it goes along, and if someone claims to have these powers and doesn't use them, they are either lying, deluded, or terribly cruel. It's awfully convenient, and really a sick joke, if the moment one has real agency, they can't use it.
>There are Yogis that claim they can thrive on 2.5 hours of sleep, and that they've been doing that their entire life.
Yes, and tons of people fall for that. They're up there with those other yogis who "don't eat food" (e.g. "Prahlad Jani is an Indian breatharian monk who claims to have lived without food and water since 1940"), perform magical tasks, and so on...
I started meditating 9 years ago and do yoga once a week and am pretty sure that if I made a lifestyle out of it i could reduce sleep need however I suspect the hours of sleep I gain will be used to meditate so in the end you don't gain that much in terms of free time per day.
You might be more productive per minute after meditating but that's another discussion
I do agree with you, whenever I meditate more often I sleep less. Also, I end up "gaining" time because I pay less attention to distractions/time wasters/procrastination.
However, in my experience it takes years before you may comfortably spend all day meditating. I'm pretty sure most of meditators, teachers or otherwise, are not able to do this. It's extremely demanding, it is only boring if you don't focus properly.
I've participated in retreats that start at 2h30AM and end at 00H00 every day, with 1h sits and 20m breaks in between (same routine over 3-7 weeks), and only a handful of people are able to follow this schedule. Even meditation "only" on a 9-5 schedule is hard.
My original reply was hyperbole. I did not mean they literally meditate all day. I meant that a day in the life of a yogi is very different than that of a normal person let alone a western one so their required sleep time is irrelevant to the discussion
We definitely have had experience with Naked Objects before this. I can tell you the main difference between Alan and Naked Objects is the modeling language under the hood. Which in Alan's case is a specific for its use, whereas in Naked Objects, it is something like Java or C#.
We will invent things, the question is the market conditions which will allow inventions to arise and then quickly gain market share. Even with the amazing progress in solar, wind and electric batteries, it’s still not enough. We need some meaningful pricing of carbon to allow the market to solve the problem.
There is this principle that I always bring up when it comes to our interaction with the government, but it fits perfectly here too.
You might be able to give up control over something, but never the responsibility that comes with it. So in this particular case, we are free to let the algorithm decide for us, but we should all be aware who will suffer when the algorithm goes haywire. It's that simple.
This is a very recent interpretation. It is legally true, but it goes against the true meaning of the word.
When you work for a charity, do you ask for a raise? Do you get a bonus if you collect more money? How much to you get to keep?
Not even mentioning that sometimes the money goes through a chain of charities, all making a living out of it, but leaving almost nothing for the final beneficiary.
Salaries are an operating cost and have nothing to do with the disbursement of profits. Some people at charities are very well paid but that has nothing to do with the charitable status.
I don't think he addresses this subject in the book or in his talks, but it would be interesting to know his opinion on the subject.