Summary of “The purpose of life isn’t to be happy-it’s to be fulfilled”

To them, happiness was indeed the chief aim in life, but they had a very different definition of what the term actually meant.
If you ask the average person today what they want out of life, the majority will tell you that they want to be happy.
If you dig deeper into what they mean, they’ll tell that they want to feel good and comfortable and be at ease.
I’ve come to terms with the fact that comparing myself to others is a waste of time, and I don’t want to get stuck chasing hedonistic temptations for the rest of my life.
My happiness isn’t a product of me getting what I want.
It’s the byproduct of the different challenges I have proactively overcome to earn what I want.
In the modern world, we have a lot of choice in terms of the exposure that we want to give ourselves to these stressors.
Want to think and live smarter? Zat Rana publishes a free weekly newsletter for 10,000+ readers at Design Luck.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Forget Dak Prescott and Derek Carr: The NFL Is Getting Worse at Evaluating Quarterbacks”

A quarterback from a pro-style offense, the team believed, could have been an NFL backup immediately-unlike someone coming out of a spread system.
No personnel problem that exists at the moment has vexed the league so thoroughly and produced fewer answers: The NFL is getting worse at evaluating quarterbacks.
There’s a reason Matthew Stafford, Derek Carr, and Andrew Luck have taken short, months-long turns as the highest-paid player in the NFL: If you’re under 30 and have a pulse at quarterback, you’re about to be rich.
The rising number of older players at the most important position in sports has led observers like former NFL player and scout and current NFL Network analyst Bucky Brooks to suggest the league is at a crossroads: It’s time for teams to adapt to new methods of finding quarterbacks or suffer through some ugly games and, perhaps, an ugly league.
Many evaluators think that spread systems are overly simple and don’t require their quarterbacks to make the kind of complicated reads they have to in the NFL. Plus, they run too much and typically don’t huddle.
“It’s still always a 50/50 shot that a quarterback hits. But the odds are better for quarterbacks coming out of a pro-style system.”
It’s Marty Hurney, the Carolina Panthers’ general manager who drafted Cam Newton in 2011 and recently rejoined the team as an interim GM. Newton, of course, won a national title in a spread offense at Auburn and has been an objectively successful NFL quarterback, winning MVP in 2015.
Figuring out just how much responsibility a quarterback had in school comes from asking college coaches about their players’ football IQ, having longer-than-usual discussions about the nuances of football, and most of all, trusting that spread quarterbacks can be just as good as anyone else.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Rotten Tomatoes, explained”

How is a Rotten Tomatoes score calculated? The score that Rotten Tomatoes assigns to a film corresponds to the percentage of critics who’ve judged the film to be “Fresh,” meaning their opinion of it is more positive than negative.
The opinions of about 3,000 critics – a.k.a. the “Approved Tomatometer Critics” who have met a series of criteria set by Rotten Tomatoes – are included in the site’s scores, though not every critic reviews every film, so any given score is more typically derived from a few hundred critics, or even less.
The scores don’t include just anyone who calls themselves a critic or has a movie blog; Rotten Tomatoes only aggregates critics who have been regularly publishing movie reviews with a reasonably widely read outlet for at least two years, and those critics must be “Active,” meaning they’ve published at least one review in the last year.
Some critics upload their own reviews, choose their own pull quotes, and designate their review as “Fresh” or “Rotten.” Other critics have their reviews uploaded, pull-quoted, and tagged as fresh or rotten by the Rotten Tomatoes staff.
What does a Rotten Tomatoes score really mean? A Rotten Tomatoes score represents the percentage of critics who felt mildly to wildly positively about a given film.
Why do critics often get frustrated by the Tomatometer? The biggest reason many critics find Rotten Tomatoes frustrating is that most people’s opinions about movies can’t be boiled down to a simple thumbs up or down.
Without any consistent proof, why do people still maintain that a bad Rotten Tomatoes score actively hurts a movie at the box office? While it’s clear that a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score and box office earnings aren’t correlated as strongly as movie studios might like you to think, blaming bad ticket sales on critics is low-hanging fruit.
How do movie studios try to blunt the perceived impact when they’re expecting a bad Rotten Tomatoes score? Of late, some studios – prompted by the idea that critics can kill a film’s buzz before it even comes out – have taken to “Fighting back” when they’re expecting a rotten Tomatometer score.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Reciprocation Bias”

The web of indebtedness created by reciprocation allows for the division of tasks, eases the exchange of goods and services, and helps create interdependencies that bind us into units that are more productive than each of us is on our own.
Reciprocation allows one person to give something to another with the expectation that the favor will be returned and the giver will not be taken advantage of.
Throughout human history, reciprocation lowered the cost of transactions, as almost everything begins with one person trusting another.
The reciprocation rule is overarching – the human species is not the only one capable of extreme cruelty.
If the reciprocation rule is so overpowering, the natural question here would be, is there a way we can still control our response to it?
Ignorance of the reciprocation rule may explain why malpractice still occurs even among lawyers with the best intentions.
As the Watergate example illustrates, an unwatched reciprocation tendency may subtly cause mindless behavior with many extreme or dangerous consequences.
Especially in its concessionary form, the reciprocation rule often produces a yes response to a request that otherwise would surely have been refused.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Army, The Inventor And The Surprising Uses Of A Batman Machine”

The Army, The Inventor And The Surprising Uses Of A Batman Machine The Army wanted a new, small device that could pull a person rapidly up a rope.
Consider what happened to inventor Nate Ball and his powered ascender.
About 15 years ago, Ball was an undergraduate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when the U.S. Army approached MIT with a request: Can somebody build a powered device that can pull somebody up a rope, like Batman does?
“Twelve years later, with a lot of blood, sweat and tears along the way, Atlas Devices gets to build those powered ascenders,” Ball says.
Atlas Devices sells the ascenders to the Army, and the Army uses them in rescue operations, as expected.
Ball says the same thing has happened with a seemingly straightforward invention: the ladder.
After Ball built the ascender, the military approached Atlas Devices about designing a ladder that was strong, but lightweight and segmented so it was easy to carry.
“Ladders can still benefit from a lot of innovation,” Ball says.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Boston Red Sox Used Apple Watches to Steal Signs Against Yankees”

The commissioner’s office then confronted the Red Sox, who admitted that their trainers had received signals from video replay personnel and then relayed that information to Red Sox players – an operation that had been in place for at least several weeks.
The Red Sox responded in kind on Tuesday, filing a complaint against the Yankees claiming that the team uses a camera from its YES television network exclusively to steal signs during games, an assertion the Yankees denied.
It is unclear what penalties, if any, Commissioner Rob Manfred will issue against the Red Sox and whether he will order a more expansive investigation to determine the extent of the Red Sox’ sign-stealing system.
As part of the inquiry, baseball investigators have interviewed the Red Sox team trainers and outfielder Chris Young, a former Yankees player.
The Red Sox told league investigators that Mr. Farrell; Boston’s president for baseball operations, Dave Dombrowski; and other front-office officials were not aware of the sign-stealing operation, the people said.
In the first game of the August series in question, the Red Sox prospered the first time they put a runner on second.
It occurred in the second inning, and Rafael Devers promptly hit a home run, giving the Red Sox a 2-0 lead. The Red Sox went 5 for 8 in that game when they had a man on second.
In the clips, the Red Sox assistant athletic trainer, Jon Jochim, is seen looking at his Apple Watch and then passing information to outfielder Brock Holt and second baseman Dustin Pedroia, who was injured at the time but in uniform.

The orginal article.

Summary of “This Is for Boston”

Danny started going on about everything I’ve done for the city of Boston, and for the Celtics organization, both on and off the court.
About what a great player I am, and how I’m going to be great in Cleveland.
Suddenly, people were telling their fans that there was going to be a rebuild, and that they were going to be a lottery team for a while.
What’s crazy is, the original reason I was going to play, was actually a little different from the reason I ended up playing.
They’re showing me that they’re going through the same thing I’m going through right now.
You really going to throw three guys on me, when I’m sharing a court with the best basketball player on the planet? Nah, I don’t think so.
Tom Brady isn’t sending a text like that to guys who played in Boston for only two and a half years – unless they did something very special.
I like to imagine that sometime not long from now, somewhere in Boston, someone is going to be a parent, talking basketball to their kid.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Personal finance checklist for those crossing 40”

So here goes a personal finance checklist for those who are hitting their 40s. First , outgrow the Joneses who have nagged your life for too long.
If you have not learned the skill of equity investing by the time you are 40, it is time you hand your money over to the professionals.
If you do not have an investment philosophy by the time you are 40, you still do not have a guiding strategy that will help your finances and enable discipline in saving and investing.
If you are 40 and still wonder why you have not been able to save consistently, and you worry about where all the income seems to be going, you should see the flashing red light of penury in old age.
If you are not already saving at least 30-40% of your income, you are either earning too less or you are spending too much.
If your expenses on lifestyle items runs along with, or ahead of your income, you will suffer the failed filmstar syndrome, where all the income was lost to flashy clothes, parties and cars, with nothing left for the proverbial rainy day.
As you move up the income ladder, your ability to save and invest will grow large enough to make up for the lost-in-a-daze first 20 years of your earning life.
From a personal financial standpoint, the age of 40 is a better benchmark because you have the power to make decisions for your future, when your outlook for your career and life is still optimistic, positive and full of possibilities.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How to Regulate Artificial Intelligence”

The technology entrepreneur Elon Musk recently urged the nation’s governors to regulate artificial intelligence “Before it’s too late.” Mr. Musk insists that artificial intelligence represents an “Existential threat to humanity,” an alarmist view that confuses A.I. science with science fiction.
Even A.I. researchers like me recognize that there are valid concerns about its impact on weapons, jobs and privacy.
It’s natural to ask whether we should develop A.I. at all.
The A.I. horse has left the barn, and our best bet is to attempt to steer it.
These three laws are elegant but ambiguous: What, exactly, constitutes harm when it comes to A.I.? I suggest a more concrete basis for avoiding A.I. harm, based on three rules of my own.
First, an A.I. system must be subject to the full gamut of laws that apply to its human operator.
We don’t want A.I. to engage in cyberbullying, stock manipulation or terrorist threats; we don’t want the F.B.I. to release A.I. systems that entrap people into committing crimes.
We don’t want autonomous vehicles that drive through red lights, or worse, A.I. weapons that violate international treaties.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Nobel-winning economist Robert Shiller says bitcoin is “the best example right now” of a speculative bubble”

As Shiller sees it, “Big things happen if someone invents the right story and promulgates it.” Quartz spoke with him about some of the frothiest assets today, from bitcoin to tech stocks.
You start talking about bitcoin and they’re excited! And I think, what’s so exciting? You have to think like humanities people.
So I’m trying to deconstruct the bitcoin story.
Big things happen if someone invents the right story and promulgates it.
Trump speaks to these things, and he seems to be saying things that nobody else will say but maybe you’re thinking.
The Trump story helps inflate all kinds of bubbles, not just bitcoin.
I think there are aspects of a housing bubble, and a stock market bubble right now.
There are a lot of cryptocurrencies but they don’t have as good a story as bitcoin.

The orginal article.