Much like American politicians and Supreme Court justices who didn't know their Venmo payments were all public. The most secure systems on the planet are only ever as secure as the dumbest people using them.

This is really sad. I can't overstate the impact Kevin had on my life. The world is suddenly less interesting and less secure and my heart goes out to family and friends. Rest in peace, Kevin.

I guess I'm not sure what I expected. There are few other options besides putting a parachute on them and ejecting them from the aircraft. I don't know the story of who posted the image and why but there's kind of a dangerous idea that anyone can just upload an image without context and remain free of responsibility for the consequences. My first thought was that the restraint was unacceptable because it just looks awful but really I can't imagine what else they're supposed to do if someone is violent and out of control. Any other option seems liable to create more problems than it solves.

This seems true for all social media. Someone recently was complaining about Facebook and I said "If your newsfeed is full of garbage it's kind of your own fault..." It takes some effort to pick and choose what kind of content you want to spend your time with. Of course, you also have to be careful that you don't just build yourself an echo chamber.

My first thought as well. At a basic level this is the age-old problem of comparing oneself to others, which is at once part and parcel of being a social animal, and has high potential for becoming pathological. My answer to these questions is invariably a philosophical endeavor to look inwards and practice the assessment of one's own inherent value independent of social factors and incidental economic structures. Beyond that I completely agree with other commenters who essentially say that jealousy/envy is merely the dark side of ambition/motivation. But it's a good idea to have a sense of one's own intrinsic value, while being aware that economic failure is not necessarily an indictment of one's talent or skill, just as economic success is not necessarily an indication of superior talent or skill.

I'm sympathetic to the stoic view, but wrestle with why it doesn't resonate with me. I think it's because at some level it seems to me to be a lie, or more accurately, it betrays the lie of society. There's some dissonance there. Sure, being stoic about it is actually healthy in a lot of ways but isn't it harmful too? What about the lot of the less fortunate? Stoicism would be fine if we as a society all shared some kind of empathetic orientation toward our fellow beings. It's not the fact someone else came out better, it's that we as a society proceed as if this always occurs because of some kind of just world, which is nonsense to use a polite word. Socialized risk, capitalized gain, stoic when things are bad, and just world when things are good.

It's this age old tension that arises with a lot of Buddhist philosophy and is embodied in the serenity prayer. At least it's a large source of tension for me: when do you let it go? Because some things shouldn't be let go.

Here's my opinion as a casual person who watched a few youtube videos on this.

The only one we have full agency/control over is ourselves. Everyone individually will do what they want, so you can't really change society the way YOU want. The best thing is to understand yourself and how you fit into the world. If you do what is best for yourself, and by extension if you are a good person then YOU try to do what's best for society in your view.

I'll give you an example. Yesterday I got myself some fast food and I offered a homeless person my fries when he asked if I got anything. When I pulled the fries out of my bag, he asked me "Really bro? I'm not taking it after you touched them" Considering the guy had no mask on (we have a mask mandate in my city) and I tried to be nice, what am I supposed to do, feel bad for myself? I was willing to give up my fries, but hey if he doesn't want them that's not my problem. I'm not going to force him to take them, nor am I gonna get worked up over it.

In my mind, I'd like to give someone food. But they have an expectation as well, and there are times when I can't meet them. It happens, and I'm still able to rationalize my good intent.

Unless I'm misunderstanding I'm pretty sure I didn't hear anything to be a jerk or to stop being empathic towards people. However, given the track record of the ancient Romans in regard to their cruelty, maybe that plays a factor in why it appears so cold?

You know, I have this exact feeling about the idea of "the meek shall inherit the earth" philosophy expounded in the Sermon on the Mount, but I haven't until now thought of it in terms of stoicism or buddhism. It's definitely important to have some idea of the difference between "fair" inequality that's just the luck of the draw that's unavoidable to some extent, and the "unfair" inequality that's a result of oppression and exploitation. It's almost certainly a bad idea to seek to simply stop comparing anything and be oblivious to all the differences between people. But like a lot of our natural thought processes there's a healthy version and a pathological version, but it's never really clear where exactly one becomes the other. There is a bit of a built in failsafe in Buddhism that is the idea of the "middle way", that indicates any "extreme" position is liable to be unhelpful. I find myself using that a lot, as I tend towards extreme views and am prone to oversimplified, black-and-white thought.

I've been using Reddit for over a decade and I don't think I've ever used it to research potential product purchases. It doesn't feel very conducive to this purpose (and the article does outline why it isn't necessarily) but perhaps I'm missing out. This isn't a very useful comment, I'm just curious to how many other Redditors this comes as a surprise, and what about Reddit draws so much of that kind of activity. Is it that it's longer form than most other platforms?