u/The-_Captain

I did my undergrad in physics in the US. Maybe 60-70% of it was focused on actually solving integrals rather than developing physics intuition, understanding degrees of freedom and constraints, etc. I think I did the infinite well problem at least 5 times using different mathematical approaches in different classes. On tests, I got the physics of every problem right because there would be no new problems, the only place I would lose points is a minor mistake like missing a constant somewhere.

I don't know what I don't know, so was this a good undergrad preparation or not?

At this point, the production value and world building is more important than the storytelling and acting anyway. They're not sticking to source materials or involving GRRM much.

Everyone wants to see Valyria. Let's put those big HBO bucks into a Valyria production!

Wimbledon 2026 granted Serena Williams a wildcard entry. Williams, who is the GOAT of the sport, an absolute legend, and one of my favorite players, lost in the first round. The player who beat her, Maya Joint, is currently ranked #87.

Tournaments have every commercial incentives to have these legends play. Everyone wants to watch another Serena match, even if it's not the Serena who wins all the slams. I imagine that match got substantially better viewership than a first round match typically gets.

However, grand slam spots are prestigious and difficult to obtain, and can change a player's career. This is especially true in women's tennis where we've seen more "Cinderella stories" recently, for example, Chwalinska, who entered the 2026 French Open as a qualifier and played all the way to the finals.

For every Serena Williams who's playing just for fun and exits the first round, there's a young, hungry, still-active professional player who has worked hard and could use that spot so much more than her. If the old legend returning plays in a few high level tournaments before the grand slam and achieves good results, there's a better argument, but without it there's no way to know how ready they are.

There is also a slippery slope and commercial enshittification risk in granting these bankable players access too often. Big tournaments will become less open to new players and more about nostalgia and the old legends driving ticket sales and TV viewership.

For the record, I'm not. I am offering a real service and I have a deep background in my niche. I have happy customers (and one unhappy one).

Doing prospecting and sales feels like fishing. It feels like I'm trying to lure companies in and "trick them" into signing with me. I don't know where that feeling is coming from, because like I said, there's no trick. I'm an honest agency owner providing a good service.

I want to feel like I have an open shop and I'm helping people browse and pick things, not like I'm tricking them to hand over their money.

Has anyone else felt that way and what did you do about it?

I think a lot about careers in the age of AI. One concept is the age-old question of whether it's wise to chase your passions. The caricature of this is a child who wants to be a musician or professional athlete and parents push them towards law or medicine.

In reality, successful musicians and athletes out-earn the most successful doctors or lawyers. When you look closely, you can make a great living in just about any field. The variable is just how good you have to be.

You can be a mediocre doctor and still have a stable, financially rewarding career. To have a stable life as a musician, you need to be pretty good.

I've seen some research, but I'm wondering if there's a formal metric sort of like a Gini curve that measures this uniformly across career paths.

I finished Morning Star yesterday. Honestly I felt like it was a good ending to the trilogy.

I'm not a fan of extending storylines after their natural death (I'm looking at you, Cursed Child). I think it's the most common way authors and screenwriters ruin good stories because the ecosystem they built got popular and fans demanded more where there wasn't any to give.

Is Iron Gold and the "second trilogy" worth it or am I good to let it go now?

Less than 10% of US House Districts are true "toss up" districts. Eighty five percent are not competitive.

That means that for most voters, the outcome of the election is decided in the primary, not the general election. For many primaries, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary. In fact, if you have to choose one, you're better off just voting in the primary election and not in the general.

Registering with a party, even if you detest everything they stand for, has no downsides. Besides participating in their primaries, you're giving them no additional money or power. You can still vote for the candidate you prefer, regardless of party (or lack of party) in the general election.

By registering for the majority party, voting for the candidate closest to your position in the primary, and voting for the other party in the general election (especially if the candidate you voted for lost), you're forcing the primaries, which are currently controlled by partisan extremists, to shift more towards your view and moderate their extremism and partisan loyalty.

This only applies to the states with closed primaries. In semi-closed states, you should just be unaffiliated.