Yes, he was an idiot, but that doesn't contradict that he was smart. In his own words, from The Dilbert Principle book:
"People are idiots.
Including me. Everyone is an idiot, not just the people with low SAT scores. The only differences among us is that we're idiots about different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you spend much of your day being an idiot. That's the central premise of this scholarly work. I proudly include myself in the idiot category. Idiocy in the modern age
isn't an all-encompassing, twenty-four-hour situation for most people. It's a condition that everybody slips into many times a day. Life is just too complicated to be smart all the time."
Not sure this really obvious analysis really helps. I've seen a lot of people thinking they are really smart for saying that everyone including them are idiots. Adams made a lot of declarations or actions that shows that he really thought of himself as "able to see what the idiot sheeple were not able to see", and this quote is not out of character at all: "you idiots don't even realise that everyone is an idiot including me".
I think The Relativity of Wrong (Asimov, https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html) is a nice counterpoint to this. Sure, we may say everyone is an idiot in some area. But there are relative levels of idiocy, and there are basic tasks you can sort of master. At the very least you can minimize your own idiocy if never eliminate it. I think mastering most essential areas in life can make you unworthy of the title of 'idiot', at least not overwhelmingly so.
There are infinitely many things to know, but not all of them are important. Knowing finitely many things (which is all we can do) can still keep us alive and well, at least for a while. And we can know some of those finitely many things increasingly well, if never perfectly.
Just as an example, if you manage say your personal finances pretty well, your health pretty well, perform any civic duties you might have, maybe do some social good or social work or charity etc., if your relationships are reasonably agreeable, respectful and pleasant, etc. and if you have a good amount of joy or peace or satisfaction, etc. in your life, then I wouldn't call you an idiot. This is not an impossible ask to know infinitely many things or infinitely precisely.
And we can learn it over 30 or 40 years, or more, prioritizing the most essential first.
Moreover, I'd say whether you can be called an idiot is context-dependent. If you get a typical (non-idiot) person, and put him in a highly specific job (which he isn't qualified for), say manager of inspectors of nuclear power plants, then he might behave like an idiot; in this case the best ability is probably the meta-ability to recognize one's own limitations and refuse work you're not qualified enough for.
Like, any person (literally any person) can theoretically be put in a situation that he might do significant harm or something stupid, this just means we have to work in contexts and understand and do well within said context; we could only legitimately be called idiots while failing badly or unethically within a canonical chosen context.
I really just don't think it's generally a good idea to go around calling ourselves (or anyone else) idiots. Too broad, derogatory, and tries to put an irremovable label on a person, which as I've explained, almost never deserves such an absolute classification.
My point was not that doing something stupid means someone is stupid, but that the examples I've provided are showing that Adams was prone to think of himself as smart when he was not. So far, there is no much proof that Adams was particularly smart (unless you are arguing that everyone can be called smart)
> Not sure this really obvious analysis really helps
Doesn't help you, sure. I'm not a fan, as a matter of taste and am self-aware enough to recognize it. The near-reliable output of his creativity and the pervasive notions, distilled and distributed to the culture are proof enough for history.
I don't think white collar tech workers are uniquely predisposed to fascism. Blue collar tradesmen are more likely to be disposed to it and capable of getting their hands dirty.
"Starting December 29, 2025, the ability to create new posts, comments, and other content will be available to users who make a more significant contribution to the platform"
The initial idea was to first sell 50% of the land and then sell the other 50%. [1] Thanks to corner crossing, the checkerboard pattern made sure that owners of the first batch wouldn't be cut off from their access by buyers of the second batch.
[1] From TFA: "This checkerboard pattern allowed the government to keep all the undeveloped sections in between and wait for them to go up in value before turning around and selling them to developers".
I think that's more than likely just a fig leaf proposed for and by the people that planned to try to only have to by ~50% of the land they actually wanted to enclose. So much of this land is too far away from anything for much meaningful development.
At least some of those journalists seem to be Hamas combatants.
"According to the IDF, [Anas] al-Sharif has served as head of a rocket launching squad and a member of a Nukhba Force company in Hamas’s East Jabalia Battalion"[1]
To be honest, it is Israel who is granting them credibility.
I can well imagine Al Jazeera aren't objective. But what other sources do I have? Journalists have been banned from Gaza - and why, if not to obscure information? If IDF is so desperate to censor what is going on, it is natural to disbelieve their narrative and to prefer the voices they are trying to censor.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Vietnam... All of these had journalists on the ground and no one tried to ban them.
Other side of Al Jazeera is not particularly pretty. No one reads that. One of their "journalist" reports on 7th October who was actually, well, there:
The joy of killing civilians. Disgusting. My support is gone.
Edit: I can't reply. Forget your whataboutism. Hamas values the martyrdom of their civilians and the deaths of Israelis more than it cares about the Palestinians. That is the tragedy here: Hamas made them perfect victims and political capital.
To note this is not a binary decision. You don't have to support one side or the other. I don't. But holding one to account and not the other is not acceptable.
This is literally the strategy of hamas, attack Israel, hide in airconditioned electrified tunnels under hospitals and schools, leave civilian population on the surface suffer when IDF tries to get to hamas and make sure it is publicized.
It's a wonderful 4d chess move unless of course you if you actually cared about Palestinians. Apparently there is a religious justification for it too. Their bandit state makes good use of it and the world laps it up
Both the translation and the original news are like one paragraph long with 0 context or source.
It’s also quite ridiculous, I’m from Madrid and pixels seem to be the phone of choice for most of my (non tech) friends.
Pixels used to be quite unknown, as most people go for budget Chinese brands, now they’re getting popular. “Get an iPhone-level camera for 300 bucks” is a massive selling point.
Latest highest end model. The "a" model are more in the 550€ area and still have super decent camera, especially if you aren't a selphie addict.
Being the models with the longest firmware support, it is not uncommon for people to buy them second hand at around 300€. I bought my Pixel 6a last year for around 200€.
The requirement to list social accounts has been present since 2018, and the FAQ [1] says: Visa applicants who have never used social media will not be refused on the basis of failing to provide a social media identifier, and the form does allow the applicant to respond with "None."
https://ie.usembassy.gov gives 504 so I can't check the primary source, but it seems like the new part is a requirement to make accounts public and applies only to F, M, and J student and exchange visas.
So this answers my question about not actually having social media. In theory you wouldn't be denied. But as a professional in the field who cares for privacy, and simply has no use for such services, i wonder if they could just assume you are lying and has bad intentions.
"People are idiots.
Including me. Everyone is an idiot, not just the people with low SAT scores. The only differences among us is that we're idiots about different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you spend much of your day being an idiot. That's the central premise of this scholarly work. I proudly include myself in the idiot category. Idiocy in the modern age isn't an all-encompassing, twenty-four-hour situation for most people. It's a condition that everybody slips into many times a day. Life is just too complicated to be smart all the time."
reply