[orzig]

The article itself is pretty mediocre, but it touches on some interesting stuff (before continuing to slippy-slide between various unstated definitions of what 'energy' means).

It doesn't have a conclusion, so I'll add one. The article supports it as supported much as any other conclusion (You get a Bayesian update! And you get a Bayesian update!) but it's the one I believe and this little box is /my/ journalistic output:

If you want better energy, you need to try a ton of things. Get ideas from the many gurus past and present, try to figure out a few measures that are not /completely/ subjective (but accept it's not physics) and just /keep trying/. The right answer will change over time, so it's a never-ending cycle. If you have an explanation for that, I'd love to hear it.

But please don't give up, and don't be afraid to feel silly because you're trying last year/decade's fad instead of this one. It's worth it.