everything gets less complicated if you think love is just "a hormonal reaction".*

let's see what notable people said about love:

theodor seuss geisel:
you know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams.

taylor swift:
when you are missing someone, time seems to move slower, and when i'm falling in love with someone, time seems to be moving faster.

kim kardashian:
i think you have different soul-mates throughout your life, that your soul needs different things at different times. i do believe in love. i will always believe in love, but my idea has changed from what i've always thought.

oprah winfrey:
lots of people want to ride with you in the limo. but you want someone who'll help you catch the bus.

william watson purkey:
you've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
love like you'll never be hurt,
sing like there's nobody listening,
and live like it's heaven on earth.

elie wiesel:
the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. the opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. the opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. and the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.

william shakespeare:
love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.

neil gaiman:
have you ever been in love? horrible isn't it? it makes you so vulnerable. it opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up.

lao tzu:
being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.

chuck palahniuk:
the one you love and the one who loves you are never, ever the same person.*

paulo coelho:
when we love, we always strive to become better than we are. when we strive to become better than we are, everything around us becomes better too.

one is loved because one is loved. no reason is needed for loving.

mahatma gandhi:
when i despair, i remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. think of it, always.

where there is love there is life.

sarah dessen:
love is needing someone. love is putting up with someone's bad qualities because they somehow complete you.

oscar wilde:
never love anyone who treats you like you're ordinary.*

plato:
every heart sings a song, incomplete, until another heart whispers back. those who wish to sing always find a song. at the touch of a lover, everyone becomes a poet.

john krasinski:
when you're lucky enough to meet your one person, then life takes a turn for the best. it can't get better than that.

katy perry:
first and foremost, self-love, and then give love away.

fyodor dostoevsky:
above all, don't lie to yourself. the man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. and having no respect he ceases to love.

edgar allen poe:
we loved with a love that was more than love.

sigmund freud:
psychoanalysis is in essence a cure through love.

best cat ever.
(see: #315)

biggest free to use video streaming platform, released in 2005. originally started as a dating website, failed catastrophically, and was bought by google 18 months after its initial launch to become the massive video sharing platform it is today

a former slave, advised president abraham lincoln on black americans' struggles.

became a heroine in the struggle for racial equality.

"i opened the book, picking a passage at random, and came across a tale about alexander the great. the emperor, as the story went, received as a gift some wondrous glass dishes. he liked the gifts very much, but smashed them all nonetheless. "why? are they not beautiful?" he was asked. "precisely because of that," he answered. "they are so beautiful that it would be hard for me to lose them. and with time they would break, one by one. and i would be sorrier than i am now."

the tale was naive but it still astonished me. its lesson was bitter: one should renounce everything he might ever begin to love, because loss and disappointment are inevitable. we must renounce love in order not to lose it. we must destroy our love so that it will not be destroyed by others. we must renounce every attachment, because of the possibility of regret. this thought is cruelly hopeless. we cannot destroy everything we love; there will always be the possibility that others will destroy it for us."

bitcoin is the solution to a problem. started trading it in 2016.

the most underrated tv series. it's on hbo max

rabbi abraham twerski talks about the difference between selfish love and true love, which must be a love of giving and not of receiving.

transcript:

"'young man. why are you eating that fish?' the young mans says, 'because i love fish.' he says, 'oh. you love the fish. that's why you took it out of the water and killed it and boiled it.' he says, 'don't tell me you love the fish. you love yourself, and because the fish tastes good to you; therefore, you took it out of the water and killed it and boiled it.'

"so much of what is love is fish love. young couple falls in love. young man and young woman fall in love. what does that mean? that means that he saw in this woman someone who he felt could provide him with all of his physical and emotional needs, and she felt in this man somebody she feels that she can write, that was love, but each one is looking out for their own needs. it's not love for the other. the other person becomes a vehicle for my gratification.

"too much of what is called love is fish love. an external love is not on what i'm going to get but i'm going to give. we had an ethicist rabbi dessler, who said, 'people make a serious mistake in thinking that you give to those whom you love, and the real answer is you love those to whom you give.'

his point is if i give something to you, i've invested myself in you. since self-love is a given, everybody loves themselves, now that part of me has become in you, there's part of me in you that i love. true love is a love of giving, not a love of receiving.'

this is an argument that suggests that one event is the cause of another event, without sufficient evidence to support the claim. for example, "i wore my lucky socks and won the game, so the socks must have brought me luck."

- he was born on may 14, 1984, in white plains, new york.
- he is the co-founder and ceo of facebook.
- he is the youngest self-made billionaire in history.
- he has a net worth of over $115 billion.
- he is fluent in mandarin.
- he is a registered organ donor.
- he has been married to priscilla chan since 2012. they have two daughters.
- he is a strong advocate for privacy and free speech.
- he has been criticized for his handling of user data and privacy issues.
- he is a controversial figure, but he is also one of the most influential people in the world.
- he dropped out of harvard university to focus on facebook.
- he was sued by the winklevoss twins, who claimed that he stole their idea for facebook. the case was settled out of court.
- he has been called the "most powerful man in the world" by some media outlets.
- he has been criticized for his work ethic and his lack of social skills.
- he has been praised for his commitment to philanthropy and his efforts to make the world a better place.

pickett's charge was the civil war's equivalent of a dramatic, high-stakes gamble, a bold throw of the dice in the smoky haze of battle. it was the centerpiece of the battle of gettysburg, taking place on july 3, 1863, and remains one of the most infamous military maneuvers in american history.

imagine it as a grand yet tragic theatrical act in three parts:

the buildup: confederate general robert e. lee decided to stake everything on breaking the union lines after two days of inconclusive fighting. he ordered nearly 12,500 men to march across open fields towards a well-fortified enemy.

the assault: led by major general george pickett and other division commanders, this massive infantry advance stretched over a mile wide. as they moved, the union artillery and rifle fire tore into them, creating a storm of lead and iron.

the aftermath: the charge reached the union lines but faltered under overwhelming defensive fire. it ended in devastating losses for the confederates, marking a turning point in the war and symbolizing the high cost of lee's gamble.

pickett's charge was a poignant example of courage and catastrophe intertwined, a bold stride that ended in retreat, influencing the fate of the nation. it's a historical moment that encapsulates the desperation and the decisive nature of battle choices in the crucible of war.

(see: battle of gettysburg)

this book explains, to a large extent, why some societies thrive while others don’t—when combined with average intelligence levels. but why isn’t intelligence alone enough? let me break it down:

we’re all familiar with south and north korea. south korea is incredibly advanced, constantly innovating, producing high-tech goods, and getting wealthier by the day. the country’s per capita income is more than 20 times that of north korea. in fact, due to the poverty and hunger in the north, south koreans are taller and live longer than their northern neighbors. north korea, on the other hand, can’t even feed its people without foreign aid, let alone produce technology.

the reason behind all this is what acemoglu describes as “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions. south korea has inclusive institutions, while north korea is stuck with extractive ones. as a result, while the south is advancing into space, the north is struggling with famine.

but there’s an important point we need to consider: the average iq levels in these two countries. despite north korea’s backwardness and hardships, their average iq is pretty close to that of south koreans. in fact, south koreans have some of the highest average iq levels in the world.

so what does this mean? it means that even after 50+ years of oppressive extractive institutions, north koreans still have an average iq of around 105, just like their neighbors in the south. if north korea’s extractive institutions were to collapse tomorrow (say, north korea reunites with the south), north koreans would likely become just as wealthy, innovative, and successful as south koreans in a short period of time.

this is where the importance of north koreans’ iq comes in. the moment they break free from their extractive system, they have the potential to become one of the most advanced nations in the world. meanwhile, many countries in latin america or eastern europe that are governed by inclusive institutions haven’t reached south korea’s level of development. this is where the average intelligence of a society plays a role.

take brazil, for instance. despite having inclusive institutions like south korea, brazil’s average iq is around 90, not 105 like south korea. that’s why brazil isn’t able to reach the same level of development. so, while inclusive and extractive institutions are key factors in a nation’s growth, average intelligence levels are equally important.

this means that even if countries like brazil have inclusive institutions, they won’t reach south korea’s level of development unless their average iq rises to similar levels. on the other hand, since north korea has high average intelligence, the moment they switch from extractive to inclusive institutions, they’ll skyrocket to south korea’s level.

of course, establishing inclusive institutions requires a certain level of intelligence. the elites who run extractive systems never want to share power, so it’s up to the people to pressure the elites and force them to create inclusive institutions. but for that to happen, the population needs to be aware and capable of demanding change. while some countries in latin america have managed to do this, north koreans haven’t—likely because of east asia’s ultra-conservative, community-over-individual culture.

this conservative, non-individualistic culture stifles creativity in east asia. a simple example is the apple vs. samsung rivalry. apple, a product of western culture, innovates and changes the world, while samsung takes what apple creates and optimizes it. sure, samsung might beat apple with optimized products, but they’ll never make world-changing innovations like apple does. and that’s because of east asia’s conservative culture. could this be linked to genetics? maybe, but research in this area is still too new to draw any firm conclusions.
(see: daron acemoglu)

the zealous badge is awarded to users who have contributed at least 10 entries on our platform. this badge represents dedication, enthusiasm, and active participation in the community.

this city has almost the same latitude and similar hot dry summers and cold winters as ankara, türkiye. it feels oddly familiar after all those years i lived there between 2008 and 2017.