Scott Alexander examines why life hacks don't seem to reach universal adoption in society, despite potential competitive advantages. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of life hacks reaching fixation in society, similar to how beneficial mutations reach fixation in genetics or how new technologies become widespread. He notes that despite the competitive nature of human society, he can't think of any life hacks that have reached universal adoption. He proposes several explanations for this, including the possibility that there are no exceptionally good life hacks, that life hacks are too individualized to reach fixation, or that useful life hacks that have reached fixation are no longer recognized as such. He grudgingly accepts some examples like organizational tools and 'diet and exercise', but notes these don't fit the typical image of a life hack. The post ends with an edit accepting caffeine as a possible example of a life hack reaching fixation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of one-sided tradeoffs, using examples from college admissions to life hacks, and suggests ways to find opportunities for 'free' gains in various decisions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of one-sided tradeoffs using college admissions as a starting point. He explains how most decisions involve tradeoffs between different qualities, but suggests ways to find opportunities for 'free' gains. These include insider trading (having unique knowledge), bias compensation (exploiting others' biases), and comparative advantage (specializing in a specific area). He applies this framework to policy debates, life hacks, and personal decisions, arguing that understanding these concepts can help identify opportunities where one can gain benefits without significant downsides. The post concludes with examples like considering nootropics if one isn't afraid of taking drugs, or buying houses on streets with rude names for a discount. Shorter summary