While I totally agree with this, I think you should still get a drivers license. There's always a very real possibility that you may need to drive a car in some sort of emergency.
It's a risk that is so low that if I were to invest time in reducing the top risks in my life, it'd be far outside the top 10. Put another way: The odds of me finding myself somewhere where I can't easily find someone to drive me somewhere is near zero.
Note that this is how I evaluate my risk. I absolutely accept this will be an issue for people who live in places where getting transport might be a problem. If that's a problem here, civilisation has ended.
Public transit strikes and system breakdowns happen occasionally, nothing to do with the end of civilization. Not being able to drive really limits your options, especially if you want to travel to remote locations for business or leisure. Knowing how it drive is just a basic life skill for any adult. It's something everyone should know how to do like being able to cook a meal or rewire an electrical outlet or shoot a gun or splint a broken limb. You might not need those skills every day but you shouldn't be completely dependent on others. Having some generalist skills gives you freedom and independence, and opens up a lot of options.
Public transit strikes doesn't take out the dozens of private hire car firms, minicab companies and app driven providers serving where I live.
So, yeah, it'd take pretty much the end of civilisation for it to be an issue. If I had no money, or lived somewhere rural, the considerations would be different.
And not being able to drive has never been a factor for me in deciding where I want to go.
If I had any desire to regularly go to anywhere so remote that I couldn't justify hiring someone to drive me there, I'd learn to drive, but in 47 years that has happened exactly zero times.
I live in a city in a functioning society, not in a rural location or third world country, and my interests don't include anything that will see me end up in the middle of nowhere. That this might not be true for you does not mean it isn't true for me.
It's sad if you really believe that. Too many people in the tech industry have led such sheltered lives that they lack perspective on what happens in the real world. At a bare minimum every adult should know how to unload and render safe a firearm.
I wouldn't want to live in the kind of uncivilized, unsafe society where people are so scared that they consider that a necessary skill. Thankfully I don't.
Probably get a license though. A real emergency is when you're most likely to make mistakes behind the wheel and you're going to be in a lot of trouble if you get in an unlicensed accident.
This might depend on location. For me, maintaining a license works out to a few USD/yr so you might as well do it if only for emergencies, to avoid a citation in an emergency (though I'll admit it's far-fetched for that to occur). In a place where licensing is expensive, I'd agree with your take.
The Messi comment wasn't trying to be snarky. Was trying to foster an actual conversation about what it means to be great and how does context matter. Sorry if it came across as insulting or uninteresting- that was not my intention.
As a European (a Brit) I haven't personally heard of either of those two people. Whereas I do know Messi, and I assume by comparing to him they mean "someone with rare skill for doing what they do better than anyone else (probably while making it look easier than it is)".
Anecdote of 1 of course... but I'd also guess that I'm not an outlier, and Messi is much better known than your two suggestions in pretty much any country.
Consider my comment in the context of the one that I replied to: I named big-wall climbers because their sport is similarly extreme and unusual in the broader population, unlike soccer/football which is neither.
As for the climbers, Honnold achieved some normie fame as the subject of an Oscar-winning documentary[1]. Steck was also among the best climbers ever, but his speed records centered on the Alps (hence my joking aside about the Euro audience).
Financier: The biography of Andre Meyer by Cary Reich. The book goes into the beginnings and psychology of one of the most important investment bankers of the 20th century. It also goes into great detail of the toxic nature of banking and the Genesis of complexity in modern dealmaking.
But if you pay with ads, don't you need to see a LOT of ads, unless your privacy is compromised and they use trackers about you to give you targeted (i.e. more lucrative) ads?
I don't see why topic-based ads based entirely on on-site participation would be a problem. No need for any user-hostile garbage, bucket your communities into topics, and let advertisers target the topics or the intersections between them. Ads are sold on-site, not via third party networks.
Reddit does this, but no idea how successful it is.
I've heard both sides of the debate (art should not be treated as commerce vs art has investment value). I think it's a very confusing debate as I see the point of both sides. Art is made to evoke beauty in all sorts of ways that we can appreciate. in an ideal world, we should not attach a sense of bazaar to it. At the same time, we need a better idea of value in art (and the illusion that said value is at least roughly quantifiable) to create an industry where art can flourish. Artists should be paid. Dealers should be paid. Neither of those things can happen without people thinking the value of their art can go up.
Their selling point is trustworthiness, privacy and usefulness. To be useful, they must have quality software/IP. And in their opinion, that should be protected.
