This brings a better case to buy your own "master" domain(s) that you actively use and park your ideas on the subdomains. I would park it in a subdomain of one of my main 2 sites - either my personal blog or freelance company. So I have idea1.mydomain.com, idea2.mydomain.comm idea3.mylongerpersonaldomain.com. Might take a damage on my SEO but an idea so early on are most likely found through personal content creation with links to that site anyways.
Readit NewsDeleted Comment
andrelgomes commented on Fuck Domainparkers indiehackers.com/post/f-k... · Posted by u/wolframhempel
andrelgomes commented on Ask HN: Best resources for non-technical founders to understand hacker mindset? · Posted by u/jamiecollinson
Paul Graham's Makers vs Managers - http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html
Deleted Comment
andrelgomes commented on What would you do if you lost your Google account? blog.viktomas.com/posts/l... · Posted by u/vicek22
The ripples are bigger than just losing your Google account, but all the third party services you use that use Google authentication. That convenience just locked you out of X amount of accounts - I recorded I used 15+ accounts before switching out. That is why I advise my coworkers and myself to always sign up with an email and password stored in a password manager.
andrelgomes commented on Psychological techniques to practice Stoicism hoanhan101.github.io/2020... · Posted by u/hoanhan101
The problems with Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism is that they don't really adhear to the notion of 'everything in moderation'. The logical extremes either can lead to some genuinely useless approaches to life.
If one should never worry about things that they cannot possibly control, even if it directly affects one's life, because we are just going to cease to exist at some point anyway, how would one now whether or not they could alter it, if they never began worrying? This very idea lead to several prominent Stoics to commit suicide, because might as well hasten my eventual ceasing of being?
Perhaps if they had concerned themselves with things that on the surface seemed outside of their reach, they might have realised that some things are approachable, even if the solution is not obvious.
The idea that one should avoid worry about things outside one's control is not a bad suggestion in general, it just should not be taken as an extreme. I mean, there is probably a reason why philosophers went back to Aristotle and Plato after those other four Schools saw prominence.
Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophers weren't trying to make their religions compatible with Zeno's or Epicurus' teachings, but rather Plato's and later Aristotle's.
Calling it an extreme connotates it as "wrong" to a degree, when other philosophers might counter that there is just the right way and wrong way i.e. Kant's Categorical Imperative and its Universal Moral Law. I do not totally agree, or even understand, the implications of Kant's pov. especially the example of a Nazi knocking on one's door, one is universally morally compelled to say you are hiding people. However the intention of these "extreme ideologies" is not to create useful/practical approaches to life or thrive in society or even be happy, but to uphold values which may be greater than life itself.