When I still had to work from the office, I was fortunate enough to be able to move my hours earlier so I could avoid morning rush hour and could, indeed, read in the morning. Afternoons I couldn't, more often than not.

It was just wasted time. I can also read on my couch before I start working from home. I've read many more books since I was able to WFH on most days.

My experience is that for people with kids, this benefit basically disappears and they want every spare second they can get

That is deeply compatible with using your energy to create a better world for yourself and others.

Mentioning these things in a comment is neither accepting of how it is nor changing it. You can't change the site - the author died. You can change your browser or reading mode or whatever. Or you can just accept it is the way it is.

I see you noticing a thing, with your senses. Sincerely:

A (used) folding phone offers 66% body content, 33% sidebar. Is a noticeable improvement.

Temper it all with Desiderata[0], since we’re being philosophical.

[0] https://www.desiderata.com/desiderata.html

Obviously it is unreasonable to continue walking with a stone in your boot because you want to adapt to it; equally obviously it is unreasonable to expect your boots to last forever without repair.

In a meta-sense, I don't think G.B. Shaw intended this quote to be taken as an absolute truth by the audience.

And, even taking the quote itself at face value (pretending the fictional character who wrote it was a real person), I think it's referring mostly to political progress. Indeed, most times that political institutions have been upended, it was by people who were not happy with the status quo. But I think that's a different sort of unhappiness from the unhappiness of not being satisfied with your life.

Funnily enough I also know some happy people who adhere to none of these points.

But then what you put effort in will resonate with you and not be the same as what you would do when trying to chase something to impress someone outside.

There is this strange paradox of accepting a situation enables changing it. I hope others who read this who understand it better will share their more lucid insights.

Because in a literal meaning, that basically puts both John Carmack and Adolf Hitler in the same "unreasonable men" bucket. Both had ideas for the "world" and adapted it to themselves.

But I don't think we should read it that way. Also you should never take one philosopher's idea and only follow it in isolation. Every great thinker has massive blind spots and it's always better to think for yourself and read opinions that may counter each other.

Also I don't think its as simple as to be happy you must accept the world and be a passive host and make no changes. In fact, many would argue you get real happiness when you pursue something bigger than yourself and in those pursuits, we usually make progress.

More so, do you think Hitler was unhappy? Are you saying every unreasonable person that makes progress is unhappy? That clearly cannot be true.

In fact, your question should be answered by what is happiness rather than how to be happy. And the answer can be complciated. No 10 list guide can truly help you unravel the actual human pysche and what makes you you but it can act as markers and make you think if done properly.