Add blog post for 2024-08-31 and change thumbnails

content/shorts/2024-08-29-valuable.md

@@ -3,23 +3,23 @@ title: Career Value
 date: 2024-08-29
 slug: career-value
 
-caption: Image courtesy of the <a href="https://wsj.com">The Wall Street Journal</a>.
+caption: Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@caftos?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Caftos</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/silhouette-photography-of-human-hand-raising-963uzyQwa6s?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Unsplash</a>
 
 image: career.jpg
 images:
     - images/career.jpg
 ---
 
-Most people will experience a dilemma at some point in there life where they are unsure of whether to pursue a career in the thing that the enjoy or pursue a career in something that will make more money. Some people are lucky and get both. HHowever, most people realize that they can't make a living building professional lego sets for rich CEOs. 
+Most people will experience a dilemma at some point in their life where they are unsure of whether to pursue a career in the thing that they enjoy or pursue a career in something that will make more money. Some people are lucky and get both. However, most people realize that they can't make a living building professional Lego sets for rich CEOs. 
 
 It's often a difficult decision. There's a fine balance between choosing something you enjoy versus something that will make your life more comfortable. As a naive high school or college graduate, it is often tempting to want to pursue that one niche thing we were good at during our childhood. We hope it'll carry us the whole nine yards, only to find out that there was never really a chance to begin with. Our parents may encourage us down the more practical, sustainable path, likely having witnessed horror stories of their friends' children failing to find a job. For my Chinese immigrant parents, it would have literally been impossible for them to get a visa to the United States without obtaining their graduate degrees. 
 
-On one hand, you want people to try their hand in something risky because they love it. There's a small chance of success, which may be worth the risk. One the other hand, there's a good chance they will fail and blame you for not pushing them harder to study or do something more useful. Humans are complicated and emotional. You're probably going to lose no matter which option you suggest to them. 
+On one hand, you want people to try their hand at something risky because they love it. There's a small chance of success, which may be worth the risk. On the other hand, there's a good chance they will fail and blame you for not pushing them harder to study or do something more useful. Humans are complicated and emotional. You're probably going to lose no matter which option you suggest to them. 
 
-However, there's a broader question here: why are some careers more encouraged than others? Why are some jobs higher paying than others? When I mentioned sustainable and high paying careers, you probably imagined careers, engineering, the medical field, computer science, or legal studies. They are notorious for their difficulty but extremely high return on investment--all with a solid and promiment career path (mostly STEM). When I mentioned risky or unsustainable careers, you probably thought of careers in art, music, history, food, or sports (mostly humanities). Jobs in these fields typically pay a lot less, and it's way more difficult for you to "make it." Some stars will rise to the top creating an image of glamour, but most people's careers will never take off. 
+However, there's a broader question here: why are some careers more encouraged than others? Why are some jobs higher paying than others? When I mentioned sustainable and high-paying careers, you probably imagined careers, in engineering, the medical field, computer science, or legal studies. They are notorious for their difficulty but extremely high return on investment--all with a solid and promising career path (mostly STEM). When I mentioned risky or unsustainable careers, you probably thought of careers in art, music, history, food, or sports (mostly humanities). Jobs in these fields typically pay a lot less, and it's way more difficult for you to "make it." Some stars will rise to the top creating an image of glamour, but most people's careers will never take off. 
 
-Most of my friends are encouraged to go into computer science or math or engineering. They know they will likely find high paying jobs after they graduate, and their parents typically approve of their career choice. But, if everyone thought that way, our world would implode as it became saturated with Patagonia-vested, rock climbing tech bros. Simply put, we need our artists, history experts, and musicians. We want some people out there to pick their interest in history despite knowing they won't make as much money in life. We need indie producers to keep on pushing out music despite their small audiences. Some of these singers and rappers eventually make it and will shape our entire culture. 
+Most of my friends are encouraged to go into computer science math or engineering. They know they will likely find high-paying jobs after they graduate, and their parents typically approve of their career choice. But, if everyone thought that way, our world would implode as it became saturated with Patagonia-vested, rock-climbing tech bros. Simply put, we need our artists, history experts, and musicians. We want some people out there to pick their interest in history despite knowing they won't make as much money in life. We need indie producers to keep on pushing out music despite their small audiences. Some of these singers and rappers eventually make it and will shape our entire culture. 
 
-But, why are some careers higher paying or more sustainable than others? It's mostly due to the market, whether you like it or not. It decides the game. Everybody needs a doctor or a lawyer. People need their plumbers and electricians to fix their homes. We all need our cell phones and washing machines and airplanes and cars. The common thread of these higher-paying careers are that they directly impact the everyday lives of most people. They are in constant demand, and we need them to live[^1]. On the other hand, it's harder to explicitly outline what a history major or a amateur athlete or a painter does for you. A painter's work or a humanities research may not be realized or valued for a long time. We may not realize their worth immediately or at all. Furthermore, it's much harder for an individual to make an impact. While the most famous painters will completely shape what art means, most painters names will never even be spoken. The value they add to society may be more indirect or harder to realize, and so, the market adjusts to it.
+But, why are some careers higher paying or more sustainable than others? It's mostly due to the market, whether you like it or not. It decides the game. Everybody needs a doctor or a lawyer. People need their plumbers and electricians to fix their homes. We all need our cell phones and washing machines and airplanes and cars. The common thread of these higher-paying careers is that they directly impact the everyday lives of most people. They are in constant demand, and we need them to live[^1]. On the other hand, it's harder to explicitly outline what a history major or an amateur athlete or a painter does for you. A painter's work or a humanities research may not be realized or valued for a long time. We may not realize their worth immediately or at all. Furthermore, it's much harder for an individual to make an impact. While the most famous painters will completely shape what art means, most painters' names will never even be spoken. The value they add to society may be more indirect or harder to realize, and so, the market adjusts to it.
 
-I'm not saying it should be this way, although I don't have a good answer for it, either. If the market shouldn't decide what a career or job is worth, then who should? How do we create a system that still incentivizes people to try things that society devalues or doesn't encourage? We want a society full of people tackling different problems. In our own little worlds, we don't realize the value that even the most "insiginificant" people have on our lives. It's easy to scoff at that person who clearly made the wrong career choice and may be suffering now. But, if people like that never tried at all, you wouldn't even be alive today to judge. However, life isn't fair. The incentive system that exists today drives certain careers above others in terms of monetary value. It's difficult to change this system without pulling up its roots. And maybe, we don't have a better option. 
+I'm not saying it should be this way, although I don't have a good answer for it, either. If the market shouldn't decide what a career or job is worth, then who should? How do we create a system that still incentivizes people to try things that society devalues or doesn't encourage? We want a society full of people tackling different problems. In our own little worlds, we don't realize the value that even the most "insignificant" people have on our lives. It's easy to scoff at that person who clearly made the wrong career choice and may be suffering now. But, if people like that never tried at all, you wouldn't even be alive today to judge. However, life isn't fair. The incentive system that exists today drives certain careers above others in terms of monetary value. It's difficult to change this system without pulling up its roots. And maybe, we don't have a better option. 

content/shorts/2024-08-31-left-right.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: Left and Right
+date: 2024-08-31    
+slug: left-and-right
+
+caption: Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@cbarbalis?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Chris Barbalis</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/black-tree-under-rainbow-and-blue-sky-Cjz4Gvvivek?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Unsplash</a>
+
+image: leftright.jpg
+images:
+    - images/leftright.jpg
+---
+
+I recently had an argument with my sister about workers' rights in the United States. We bickered about the issue back and forth, ultimately determining that our disagreements boiled down to our different worldviews. Although I won't necessarily concede that she is as right as I am, I will say that it did teach me about the importance of opposing ideologies. 
+
+In the political sphere, we can typically place people on the left-to-right wing ideological spectrum. I've taken this particular snippet from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum):
+> Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on  ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism" while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction, and nationalism"
+
+In common politics, you'll see the extremists at both ends of the spectrum battling it out on social media, headline news, and popular media. It's an entertaining yet aggravating battle to watch, as most dialogues are extremely hostile and counterproductive. The heaviest proponents of either side will find it almost impossible to agree on any solution, as the way they see the issue is basically defined by completely different perspectives.
+
+Both perspectives are necessary as they bring a sort of balance into the societal dynamic. The progressive left often concerns itself with "victims" of the system. It is characterized by historical movements of equality, pivotal moments of change, and a generally more "compassionate"[^1] attitude towards the dispossessed. On the other hand, the conservative right often concerns itself with adhering to tradition, personal initiative, stability, and hierarchies. It is inherently more reactionary, where the goal is to prevent the progressives from going too far. 
+
+Without the left, we'd still be in an anarchist fascist world adhering to old bigoted ideas, enveloped in a system resistant to any kind of change. Without the right, we'd either be in a communist dystopia, a structureless, primal world without any societal backbone. Each side balances the other side, bringing a societal slider somewhere closer to the middle. There's always an ongoing battle where that slider may shift too far to the left or to the right, which is going to be a battle to eternity or one that ends in imminent disaster. 
+
+In the argument with my sister, we considered the general problem of most people being unable to financially support themselves in a world that is becoming unsustainably expensive. Loosely speaking, she was concerned with people being unable to afford to live anymore due to a system that is broken, while I was concerned with many people not taking financial responsibility for their own lives. Both ideas are very fair and not mutually exclusive--our system has broken in a way that has caused housing prices and inflation to skyrocket. Some solutions target a population or group level that can make things better for a lot of people. However, there's no doubt that many people are neglecting their financial responsibilities, and a series of inaccurate or irresponsible decisions can cause a system-wide financial epidemic. We can have a better system with more educated and responsible citizens. It's not so simple, either. The way you see the issue can overly influence what you think the root cause of the problem might be. At a political scale, this ideological disconnect can muddle or polarize an issue that might have a somewhat optimal solution. With a good enough system, the extremists will be knocked down a peg and you'll end up finding this more centrist and reasonable solution. In some cases, one side is a lot more right about an issue than the other. 
+
+# Progressive vs. Traditional Ideas
+
+Another dynamic I wanted to discuss is the nature of ideas brought up by the progressives and conservatives. Progressive ideas are progressive in the sense that they are new and challenge existing traditions. They are commonly overly unrealistic, idealistic, too surface-level, or flat-out harmful. This is because progressive ideas are *new*. It's easy to come up with ideas and not so easy to come up with *good* ideas. Progressives will offer solutions that are not thought out because it is incredibly hard to fully think things through in our extremely complex systems. When good progressive ideas are accepted as the new norm, they are usually tuned to a more reasonable degree--after the conservatives have had their way with them. Conservatives stick to tradition because the only reason why traditional ideas exist is because they have worked (to some extent) in the past. They have a proven track record and have predictable outcomes. Progressives often challenge traditional ideas without fully understanding why they exist, bringing in novel ideas that break things in ways they haven't considered. On the other hand, conservatives may be too rigid with tradition, holding onto rigid and potentially harmful ideas of the past. They are resistant to change when change is needed, which may cause bad ideas to go unpunished for long periods of time. It's not hard to see why progressives and conservatives need each other. They are each there to keep the other in check. 
+
+It's often hard to find the boundary between the two sides, as any individual's moral and value system is strongly shaped by their ideological preference[^2]. People will find solace in their in-group, relating to those more similar to them. Even in gray areas, it's possible to find some middle ground. Regardless of what side you are on, you can't automatically dismiss the other side. They exist for a reason--a reason that isn't always clear at the moment. 
+
+[^1]: Too much compassion for one party can often lead to vitriol for another party. That's why most left-wing extremists are as toxic and arrogant as right-wing extremists. 
+[^2]: Your political leaning is very influenced by your personality. Women tend to be more compassionate and emotional (by a small margin), which partially explains why women are on average more left than men.