That's kinda the point. The thousands extra you spend is buying you a potentially valuable service.
I wish her all the luck in the world. But hurry, please.
(For what it's worth, I simply don't understand the people who wring their hands over the alleged bad consequences of much longer human lifespans. They seem to me to be victims of the biggest case of Stockholm Syndrome of all time. For a longer exposition of my thoughts on this go here.)
The argument here is: it could be, but please don't bet that way.
If I'm not mistaken this is what the Tralfamadorians in Slaughterhouse Five believed.
Modern cosmology is so strange.
"Why you DON'T need eight hours sleep: Doctor reveals how much rest the body really requires - and says napping during the day is a 'natural' thing to do"
I sure hope this is right, because these days it's kinda where I'm at.
Up until the early 19th century people were sleeping three or four hours at the start of the night, waking up for a couple of hours, and then napping until the sun rises.
Then, during the day, they would often fit in another snooze before they curled up again to repeat the process, because this is biologically how we are programmed.
For those who might not appreciate the reference, see "Milton Friedman Shovels vs. Spoons Story". (Yeah, yeah, for an exact parallel, the spoon should be wielded by workers not a machine, but it's pretty close.)
This strikes me as an apt comparison:
But the difference was, when you look back at those Amazon shareholder letters and you look back at what Jeff Bezos wrote, you look back at the tolerance they had for low gross margins, for a low stock price, for just grinding it out and investing and investing and investing, and trusting that if you do right for the buyer, everything else takes care of itself.
This is Sam Walton all over again.
If you've missed this amazing story out of--where else?--San Francisco, do take a couple of minutes to read this. The United States of America in 2019, folks.
"The New York Times has a course to teach its reporters data skills, and now they’ve open-sourced it"
So fine, I suppose the Times should get credit for trying to make sure their reporters have "data skills". But my question is why should such a course be necessary? Aren't the majority of Times reporters college graduates? Shouldn't they have encountered this material there? If not, why shouldn't they be expected to learn about data on their own as employees of the (once) respected Paper of Record?
"Yale's most popular class ever is now available for free online — and the topic is how to be happier in your daily life"
If you trust a Yale psychology professor, this may be of interest.