My favourite places to work are all-inclusive holiday resorts. Lanzarote and the Algarve most recently. Being all inclusive means there is no thought process in eating or drinking. Nor any need to shop, clean, cook.
The most difficult thing is finding out what the internet situation is in hotels - but this has vastly improved even in the last year. I generally call up reception, and travel with an ethernet cable.
Incidentally for an individual or a couple, Airbnb is generally far more expensive than a reasonable half-board hotel. I've only ever found Airbnb type stuff useful in capital cities.
I've been at my most productive working in:
- Wetherspoons in Slough
- An apartment in Cairo
- A bungalow in Lanzarote
- The lobby of the Apex hotel in Dundee (current)
Downsides are seeing a laptop screen in the sun (wear a dark shirt) and being surrounded by happy couples while on one's own.
(I'm back to Lanzarote for a week at the start of December if anyone fancies a coffee)
That'd help the people wanting to turn off the Internet.
EDIT: And, if you really need it, you can get Internet on a ship. It's hideously expensive, but that's okay. You just need to think before going online.
An example of similar hotspotting would be the ftp app on f-droid.
What would be good would be if there was an easy way to filter the local database for specific tags before putting it on the phone.
Edit: I'm guessing SO probably won't have an issue with it.
It works but the experience is terrible. I'd be happy to throw money at a better app, in case anyone here is bored... :)
Might head down for the winter again, would be my my 4th I think, and I still only grok about 5% of the language (Brazilian Portuguese is worlds easier for me to comprehend).
My remote work setup is simple: rent an apartment with high speed internet for a few months and dive in.
Finding that apartment is the tricky bit, you have to dig around on the net -- odd given that there are great swaths of empty apartments everywhere down there in the winter, which is of course the best time to be there, 16-18C, warm-ish water, etc.
In some ways I was more productive than before, but I tended to reuse less code, and use less sophisticated algorithms and data structures to solve problems. Having good code around to read became a lot more important, as did having access to good books, and good man pages. (It reminded me why I loved OpenBSD so much in the 90s)
The most positive thing that came out of it was reading a lot more code; I realized one of the habits that had diminished most since sometime in the last decade was the habit of reading the source code for something when I had a problem with it, instead of immediately googling it.
It made me think that maybe younger programmers should try working without a connection now and then (say, for a week at a time). Also that open source has really changed things; there's so much stuff that I don't even think about writing myself now, because I know someone out there has already written and open sourced.
Books. And if you were lucky you would buy 2 or 3 so you could triangulate something that didn't make sense. At least that is what I did.
Also plenty of trying and iteration.
For hours on end. (Not sure by your question if you had done this or were just asking btw.).
When I bought a Unix system (mid 80's) it came with a bound set of maybe 10 manuals iirc. Getting other books was difficult I had to drive miles to a University bookstore to even find anything on Unix or C. Software wasn't free of course. It cost real dollars and was pretty expensive and came on floppies.
A few years ago I built this php/mysql just to store things that I learned or figured out (correct syntax for rsync might be an example) so I wouldn't have to re google them.  But now what I'm seeing is that most things can be found by google quicker than in the format I am using the db for. (But it's still helpful because I can cut paste and edit). I also use a wiki to keep track of what I have found that is helpful. Putting something in the wiki seems to help a little.
My point is in the past there would have been much more memorization reinforcement (see  below) than today. My brain is totally getting lazy because it knows the answer is right at my fingertips one way or another. When I used to do the 3x5 cards  I typed it up, printed it, reduced it, pasted it and the act of creating and using those "flash" cards made me memorize the answers.
The other problem is the flood of information. To many cool and interesting things to test out and get the hang of. I remember back when I tried C for the first time (don't even think there was c++). Could work with that for a long time since there wasn't really anything else to play with. 
 Old way of doing this used to be 3x5 cards or those 8.5 x 11 plastic (can't think of the actual word for it) cheat sheets like "Unix Quick Reference". See: http://www.bookdepository.com/Unix-Inc-Barcharts/97815722239...
 I'm not a programmer but I do some programming to help with what I do. And have been doing it for a long time. So perhaps if I was doing this full time and my needs were different (instead of intermittent) this would be less of an issue for me.
Noting even that when learning php somethings that I cut and pasted had weird invisible embedded characters that caused things to fail . That was actually a pretty good learning experience trying to take something that appeared correct character by character and figure out why it wasn't working by stripping things down the the basics.
 Might have been on w3schools or something like that.
But seriously, there are pros and cons with this. On the one hand, by outsourcing certain aspects of memory, we can hold much more. It's kind of like learning to call APIs rather than re-writing everything from scratch. On the other hand, I believe that instant recall has it's advantages. (I think our generation can do math approximations in our head faster than the current generation, and that's an advantage)
I did some work for p&o cruises, on a ship that focused on round the world trips. These was one old lady there in her 80s who had swapped a nursing home for the ship - and had been there for 3 years or so. The food was incredible, she had diffent company every night due to other guests coming and going, was treated like royalty by the crew (unlike normal nursing home residents), and had an onboard doctor and nurse when needed. And all this was cheaper than any nursing home. Inspired idea.
Another benefit: take your spouses/partners; so long as they are able to let you work during the day while they hit the gym/spa/bingo etc. Everyone wins.
Only danger I see is eating too much.
If it's not mandatory then you're splitting your team up for 1-3 weeks.
Some startups demand you travel for 2 weeks a year for "hackathons" in remote locations. I don't see the difference.
As for the risks of a cruise ship, if something goes wrong, your options are limited. I say this as a navy veteran that's had to deal with multiple things that go wrong on a ocean vessel. (Fire, flooding, engine failure, etc...) As a civilian, I'm very wary of cruises.
That reminds me of a funny experience I had in Cancun a few years back in Cancun. My wife booked a room at the all-inclusive Temptation resort because it had the best rate. When we got there, we were surprised to find that it was basically clothing optional. Be sure to check out the hotel website first if you want to avoid distractions!
I booked it through Costcotravel.com. It's much cheaper in the low season. Paid $325/night total including tax; that's for two people and it included round-trip airport transfers ($120 value). If we were to have a dinner experience like what they offer in the US, it would easily run $300+ each time.
Better question might be deaths/injuries/etc per day, as compared to living in a city, a cabin in the woods, etc.
"In the event of an emergency, it is the entertainers who are in charge of the lifeboats. Because the rest of the crew has actual nautical duties, the kids from Fiesta Caliente are trained to man the lifeboats. If you ever have to get on a lifeboat, the person in charge of your safety will likely be a nineteen-year-old dancer from Tampa who just had a fight with his boyfriend about the new Rihanna video. James also told me that each lifeboat has a gun on it and that once a lifeboat is in the water, the performer–lifeboat captain is trained to shoot anyone who is disruptive. This is apparently legal in accordance with maritime law."
It is important to distinguish among cruise outcomes -
I'd rather experience a 24-36 hour power outage than
a fire that resulted in passengers at sea in lifeboats,
but there appear to be some narratives that conflate
"our honeymoon was not what I had dreamed of" with
"captured, burned, sunk, and destroyed" without
any points on a scale in between.
Third party advice I'd heard on cruising:
avoid the very cheapest lines
choose an operator with a generally nordic background
(not flag/registration, more company origin).
- no toilets flushing.
- No internet
- no hot meals
Oh god, that sounds nightmarish.
or if you're of a different age:
The whole point of the suggestion is that a Cruise is an entire package of benefits.
I can go from London to San Juan in 14 days, for about £32 / day. That's cheaper than life at home.
Think I'm gonna book myself a cruise soon
Edit: Just exploring this guy's blog, and it turns out he's Herbal from "The Game" - an excellent book if you've not read it.
What is happening to people? When you are insulating yourself from nearly every aspect of day-to-day normality just to be able to concentrate without distraction there is a problem and it's likely you are working to much. I'm all up for travelling but this just seems like an easy way to remove yourself from the world to get more done. Why not just check into a mental health clinic with a wifi dongle - you won't have to cook or clean and they'll be perfectly equipped to deal with you once the monumental burnout hits.
This tactic seems like it could be more of a sanity-booster than anything, if applied responsibly.
All of these places have easily available wifi, good food, great people, and lots to do after work. If you're smart about it, there are even nice places just outside of these towns where you can camp (< 14 days) for free and still have 4G cell service.
I don't think I'd compare the two directly, though. Driving an RV is probably more expensive per-day even discounting the food and services on a ship and assuming very little depreciation on the vehicle (i.e. you got a deal used), and it's a lot more work. Between finding places to park/camp, run the generator or hook up power, empty the toilet, maintain the drivetrain, cooking, and the inevitable RV disaster-breakdowns RVing is a lot of work - a far cry from "saunter to the restaurant, pick a meal, eat it, come back to a freshly cleaned room and more food."
I do not know what format it is however because I have not gotten around to using it yet.
Also... I didn't post either of these... did one of my 2 minute cruise-internet email checks and was pretty surprised to see that I was on the front page twice.
However, I don't think this (somewhat critical) article should deter any would-be cruise goers, especially if you have work to engage you during the time.
I tend to go full Howard Hughes (not leaving my 2-3 room suite) for a few days, do some limited local exploration, etc. I feel a lot better having a separate bedroom and office. Free breakfast and lounge means effectively unlimited food, although local restaurants, room service, etc are options.
This week I've been at the Le Meridien Bangkok, probably my favorite hotel in town, for 5000 points/night, net, which is essentially $50/night in foregone cash back on credit card purchases, or about $100/night at retail. It cost me $50 to fly here from Singapore, where I couch surfed with friends for a few days, after 10 days in Bali with the girlfriend.
Less risk of fire, norovirus, my hotel is mainly full of nice Japanese people instead of either obnoxious partier spring break types or old dying people, 50M Internet, etc.
(1) Internet access is "limited". I'll stick with "limited" because it's a mixed bag. It's been 5 years since I cruised, though not Mediterranean and was able to find flat rate per-day, however, the one day I broke down and purchased access I found it to be very unreliable (single shared satellite connection for the entire ship). This is the same for phone service. The last ship I was on had a ship-board cell "tower" that showed up as international and I can imagine even T-Mobile doesn't cover that in their zero roaming considering ship to shore calls were $9.00/minute from the suite. This also encourages my coworkers to think long and hard about whether or not to call me in an emergency.
(2) Everything is taken care of, including entertainment. I find it difficult to relax, even on vacation -- it's an exercise of planning what to eat, when to eat, what to see, what to do and when to do it. When "at sea", the cruise director provides a menu of what you can do and when. You pick. Very little energy is expelled in enjoying myself.
(3) When in port, same rules apply. You don't have enough time to plan some grand excursion, so you pick one or two things to do and head back. I always opt for a room with a window and have found that if the ship is oriented with me facing the shore, I can pick up free Wi-Fi from restaurants at shore for a fix (even when the ship is too big and has to be anchored at sea). This provides for a quick fix of internet and stretching.
Because there are many times of the day where there is literally nothing else to do, I find it's the only thing that slows my mind down. By day 7 or so I'm ready to be home again, and the weeks that follow my vacation are usually amazing. The time spent being forced to be alone with my thoughts results in me returning with new ideas, new ways to solve old problems and just a generally more positive outlook. It's the only vacation I take where I truly get the idea of taking time out to decompress.
Anyway, interesting idea if you can live without internet. Technically speaking, if you're in international waters (and not a US citizen, which is a long story), you won't even owe taxes on the work you do aboard.
Basically it just matters what your starting ocean is and if it's round trip or not.
"And then everyone gets out to help carry the ship over the Darien Gap..." or possibly,"Shackleton, the adventure."
I took the Toronto to Vancouver train in 1984, and although I understand the details of that route have changed quite a bit since, it was a wonderful experience.
95% of the trip is through wilderness, with occasional stops in small cities that seem to just spring up in the middle of nowhere (Winnipeg...). Once past Thunder Bay, the train suddenly empties out a bit, so it doesn't feel crowded, and spending all day reading, in comfortable seats, with wilderness streaming by the huge window next to you is just wonderful. I found the other passengers quite interesting—I shared my four-seat "section" with a forestry student off to work in a lumbercamp for the summer, and learned a lot of interesting stuff about Canada, and forests... :]—and the vibe was very amiable and quiet. People were friendly, but there was a distinct lack of "chatterers" and most people seemed content to do their own thing most of the time.
Because the trip took five days, and there was basically no demand on my time, it felt incredibly unrushed, and combined with constant low-level "passive" distraction in the form of scenery, the wonderful light, and the soothing motion and sounds of rail travel, it left me feeling both incredibly relaxed and oddly energetic.
Extreme long-distance train travel is generally way underrated, I think; obviously it's not ideal if you're in a hurry, but if you have a few days, it's often a treat. Although the Canadian trip was the best, I've also traveled by train from Seattle to Boston, and it was a great trip too, for many of the same reasons (Amtrak long-distance seats are just amazingly huge and comfortable though).
I was also well prepared for some isolation, with a big stack of books to read, pads of paper etc for writing on etc.
In a way I also think it was easier alone. Travelling with a friend can great fun, but to some degree it can also detract from the feeling of freedom... Because there were some friendly passengers, I never felt lonely, but I also felt completely free to stare out the window and think for hours on end. No pressure.
1) Listed prices generally DO NOT include gratuities. Low level cruise employees like the cleaning crew, cabin stewards, waiters, cooks, etc. are paid ridiculously low wages, because cruise ships are registered to countries like Panama and the companies do not need to adhere to U.S. standards. I don't recall offhand, but for a 7-day cruise the "automatic" gratuity is, I believe, around $100 or so per person, so take that into consideration. You can remove the charge if you want to, but you'd have to be a pretty big asshole to do that :) Also, prices are based on double-occupancy, so if you go by yourself, double the fares.
2) Internet is expensive, slow, and charges by the minute). However, if you do this a lot, some cruise loyalty programs will give you free internet. I know Princess does this. Also, you're cell phone my work in certain locations. I'm a U.S. AT&T subscriber and I have full service in U.S. ports like San Juan and the U.S. Virgin Islands. If you can tether your phone, you'll get much faster and cheaper service that way than on the boat internet.
3) Don't get sick / injured. My wife stepped on broken glass while wearing open-toed shoes and got cut up pretty bad. The doctor on board used strips instead of stitches, and the cut reopened in two days, by which time we were already off the ship. The crew handled the incident terribly. The problem with the glass was not resolved quickly, my wife had to wait a fair amount of time for someone to show up with a wheelchair to take her to the doctor and the crew went into "don't get sued" mode really quickly. They gave us pushback when we refused to sign a liability waiver before getting treatment and we had some security guy who kept insisting to come into our room to photograph the shoes my wife was wearing at the time. When we complained the next day about the process, a nice woman sat down with us to hear out our complaint, but never really did anything. We were adamant about NOT paying for the care and it never showed up on our bill, so we let well enough alone. Three months later, they sent us a bill for $300 for the care. After we sent their HQ a letter in response, they ended up waiving the fee and giving us $100 credit towards our next cruise. Nice, but it was ridiculous in the first place since.
4) In regards to the above, had something worse happened, or they had refused to waive the fee, good luck fighting the cruise company in court. You're not only bound by typical consumer-crushing stuff like forced arbitration, but you're also getting into international legal difficulties. For big cases like the cruise that tipped over, it's worth the hassle, but for smaller claims, you're pretty limited in what you can realistically do.
All that said, I think this is a pretty cool idea and had always thought about how cruises could be a cool little work/vacation thing.
Does the fact that I didn't know about "tipping culture" when I was first time in the US makes me an asshole?
If you are in the US and received good service, but left crappy or zero tips then yes, you definitely leave a negative impression of yourself. Nobody will understand why you left a bad tip or just think "oh, he's a foreigner, he doesn't understand." They will just think you stiffed them. Or they will perhaps think - "oh he's from country X - they must all be cheap assholes there. I hope I don't get any more tables with people from that country."
Would it not be the same if I visited your country and was rude or insulting regarding some very basic and obvious part of your culture?
People may differ about what is "obvious." Something that doesn't exist in my country and that I've never heard of ... is not going to be "obvious" to me.
Bullet point #1. I would consider that fairly obvious.
If you can't manage to stumble across #1 cultural tip then you obviously have not done much research. You shouldn't expect people to excuse your ignorance of their culture. That goes for any country - not just the US.
This is generally what happens. I have a few friends who are bartenders/servers and they loathe Australians.
But to the average Australian - we have a very decent minimum wage and ridiculously good penalty rates (like, work a public holiday and you get double time or double time and a half). Tipping is just something that is non-existent, and I think people just don't expect that the US would treat people so much worse than we do...
 I've lived in the USA almost my entire life, and have never understood why "we" are "Americans" when there are many, many other countries on both American continents that aren't "Americans". Why is there not a term for us that is more accurate and less Americentric (wait, really?).
You might see on many left-wing president's speeches, they start with "Hermanos Americanos" ("American Brothers"), which definitely does NOT include the USA :P .
The country is called "The United States of America," so its people are "Americans." Similarly, people from "The United States of Mexico" (yes, that's its real full name) are called "Mexicans."
Languages evolve as an emergent property of people who speak them. Language usage is not subject to revision or control by self-appointed intellectual fairness monitors who unilaterally arrogate to themselves such an authority. Linguists call this practice "prescriptivism," and it is widely denigrated as (ironically) an imperialist tactic used by the power class to enforce their social position.
However, the principle itself is not limited to any particular political orientation; leftist prescriptivism is just as unsupportable in a linguistic sense as imperialist prescriptivism is.
Basically restaurants are the only place where tips are absolutely expected and you can make yourself look bad by not tipping. For anything else, if I'm not sure I usually just check a travel guide or go on forums and ask other people what they do.
I would do this if I travel to any country, just ask around at how you should behave if you want to fit in.
You even admit that locals barely know what's expected in some situations!
I'm not a prick so I'd shrug it off as someone being ignorant of the local customs.
He was from the US, and I don't think he was being an ass-hole.
(2) People who generalize about an entire class of people being "assholes" ... maybe should look in the mirror.
The whole PUA thing is about manipulating vulnerable people so you can have sex with them. It's definitionally assholish. Assuming that a given PUA is an asshole is like assuming an Englishman speaks English. It's not a perfect correlation, but it's certainly the way to bet.
Such techniques of course can be abused by assholes against the vulnerable as well.
All you have to do is look at the OP's profile to find this picture. That sure doesn't look like some poor bloke who has trouble talking to people.
: (slightly NSFW) http://www.pualingo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/herbal-ty...
Also, excellent analogy.
She didn't accurately quote from his book and may have mis-represented key quotes that she pulls from it.
He sure isn't helping his case. All of the random claims of "socialism" and "left-leaning" don't help, either.
In fact, none of his clarifications actually prove she misquoted him, and each time he quoted his book in that post, it fit exactly with the original review.
From his language (referring to women as "the pussy" instead of as, you know, actual people) to his extreme generalizations of women and cultures, it's apparent the original review was spot-on for both Roosh's book and PUA culture in general.
The point is that at its best this stuff is about learning to evolve how you handle yourself with others to have more success in social endeavors. Ie. most things that don't involve staring at a screen.
True, but your implication has it backwards. Tynan is not part of the vast majority. He is an outlier, one degree of separation from Mystery(Erik von Markovik) and Neil Strauss.
The vast majority of people are unable or unwilling to be so ruthlessly selfish and sacrifice healthy, stable relationships on the altar of hedonistic sex-- even if they think that's all they want (and most will admit otherwise).
The dilemma is that guys who write about attraction and having sex with women tend to benefit a great deal by having a lot of experience with women. That's not very compatible with traditional monogamous relationships, so it will always be easy to attack them from this angle however irrelevant that angle may be.
PUA strikes me as a "sales and marketing" technique to advertise yourself as an interesting casual sex partner. There are some asshats who manipulate, but then there are also high-pressure salespeople who manipulate; that doesn't make all sales and marketing unethical.
I dunno if I'd call them assholes, but I do feel sorry for them.
No it isn't.
I honestly wonder how far up your ass your head has to be to completely ignore just how saturated the PUA community is with terms designed to objectify, marginalize, belittle, and disparage specifically women, and just how many of the highest regarded figureheads of the community are throbbing dickholes whose only goal in life is to find a modicum of self worth by pandering to the most cliche stereotype of traditional, toxic masculinity.
He didn't say the end goal is "picking up conversations". Mindcrime was almost certainly taking offense to the infantilizing attitudes expressed in the quote he included, not to its reference to sex.
For the most part, the end goal is sex, and sometimes it's long-term companionship. There's nothing wrong with either of those.
I honestly wonder how far up your _ss your head has to be to completely ignore just how saturated the feminist community is with terms designed to objectify, marginalize, belittle, and disparage specifically men, and just how many of the highest regarded figureheads of the community are throbbing c_nts whose only goal in life is to find a modicum of self worth by pandering to the most cliche stereotype of fragile, vulnerable femininity.
See? It's easy to disparage large groups!
Women aren't adults who can be held responsible for their own actions and decisions; they're vulnerable children who need to be protected at every turn.
If you (as a man) visit an Apple Store just to look around, and you walk out with a brand new laptop, you're a customer. You made a decision. Yes, Apple works very hard to maximize conversions, but you're an adult, and it's silly to shame and vilify Apple for "manipulating" a "vulnerable" man into buying their products.
However, if you (as a woman) choose to have sex with a man who reads tips about how to increase his chances of having sex, you're a vulnerable victim of manipulation. That mean, bad predator who took advantage of you needs to be shamed!
Western media is overflowing with tips for women to get what they want from men. And that's okay. :)
But if you're a man, don't you dare read tips about how to get what you want from women. That would be misogynist. You don't hate women, do you, mindcrime?
The common name for the system in which men and women manipulate one another is called "patriarchy". (When you look beyond men and women, it's called "kyriarchy".) It's bullshit on both sides.
There are two reason it's seen as worse for men, both historical. One is the men have had way more power and are still substantially advantaged. The more power you have, the more responsible you are for a fucked-up situation.
The other is that people with less power are forced to be manipulative to survive. E.g., 100-200 years ago, when professional women were very rare, women focused a lot marrying well, because they didn't have a lot of other options. So there's a bunch of cultural hangover from that.
So I'll simply say that it shows a remarkable lack of empathy and understanding for you to call those desperate men who resort to PUA tactics "powerful". Almost by definition, they are acting from a position of weakness.
I realize it's currently trendy to break the world down into large, tidy, digestible traits (maleness and femaleness in this case), labeling one as "privileged" and the other as "oppressed".
Life's way too complicated for that.
As to your non-argument argument, I have plenty of empathy for the desperate. But I can still condemn them using what power they have to manipulate other desperate people.
A community dedicated to developing, sharing, and applying methods to manipulate women into sex being considered misogynistic is not the same as casual sex being considered misogynistic.
Why would you suggest that an entire class of people do something?
You should read "The Game", by Neil Strauss. He documents the process of becoming a pickup artist, the people he met, the stages he went through. And as you read it, you will realise something - the only surefire way to becoming a successful PUA is to improve yourself, to become the best version of yourself, and at the end of it all, that's what these guys were trying to do.
Yeah, there are assholes. There's always assholes. But at the end of the day, this so-called "PUA" culture is about turning yourself into the best version of yourself you can be. And isn't that what all us startup types are trying to do? Rising to a challenge? Stepping into those shoes? Pushing ourselves beyond what we thought possible? Closing the deal?
There are more parallels than you think. Read that book. And don't be so eager to judge people. They're more like you than you realise.
That also happens to describe the mob and the serial killers community.
But "here comes the shaming language" ...
Let me know when you are as equally hard on women for learning all the PUA tip-equivalents (for their gender) from age 5 onwards, through to the Vogue Teen and then the Cosmo years.
EVERY SINGLE women's magazine you see on the shelves at the supermarket, has the equivalent of "PUA tips and tricks" in every issue. Such as "how to make him ..." or "What he likes in bed" or whatever. It is so prevalent, women aren't even aware of it, like a fish doesn't notice the water.
Let a guy start learning some evo-psych, learn how to dress better, work on his conversation skills, and quit being a supplicative schlub ... and the Holy Hand Grenade of Guilt and Shaming gets tossed.
See, here, where you gender stereotype "women" (and not a subset of them) as equivalent to "the PUA community", that's a good illustration of the problem right there.
> EVERY SINGLE women's magazine you see on the shelves at the supermarket, has the equivalent of "PUA tips and tricks" in every issue. Such as "how to make him ..." or "What he likes in bed" or whatever.
Lots do, but, no, not every single one does. (Leaving aside for the moment whether the things you describe are actually PUA-equivalent.)
> It is so prevalent, women aren't even aware of it, like a fish doesn't notice the water.
Actually, they do notice it. For some women, its part of the reason they buy the magazines (though, usually -- unlike for self-proclaimed members of the "PUA community" -- not usually a point of pride.) For other women, its a source of entertainment, something to laugh about (either among each other or with male friends.)
For other women, its part of the reason they object to many mainstream women's fashion & lifestyle magazines as reinforces of patriarchy and traditional gender roles.
But what is certainly not true is that they don't notice it.
> Let a guy start learning some evo-psych, learn how to dress better, work on his conversation skills, and quit being a supplicative schlub ... and the Holy Hand Grenade of Guilt and Shaming gets tossed.
No, only when they proudly label themselves as members of a community whose very name is about using whatever knowledge or skills they have to manipulate women into sex.
You can't really be surprised that people react to the labels you choose for yourself.
"Negging" is a negotiating tactic and you have failed to show how it is linked to misogyny in any way, shape or form.
FWIW, to be accused of misogyny is really offensive to me personally.
is this usual outcome?
What makes you say that? He's not the one throwing names around. What would constitute "reacting well" in your book? Agreeing with you?
All I'm doing is pointing out that being "negged" just seems to be making him quite defensive and angry. I thought that having his self-esteem be reduced should make him more sexually appealing and available - but that doesn't seem to be happening.
A neg is more or less exclusively meant to be used on women who are exceptionally attractive AND who have an enormous ego because of that. It's meant for women who are always surrounded by fawning men who cater to her every whim because she is beautiful. Especially in an environment, such as a nightclub, where come-ons are frequent. And even then, it usually needs to be very subtle, used in context with as light a touch as possible.
Right, but in practice it doesn't work like you seem to imagine it does.
A handful of feminists are accusing him of hating women for wanting to be more attractive to women. Nothing's new.
Just because people aren't standing up to a handful of feminist bullies ("fedorable"?) doesn't mean the community here doesn't like him. It just means that don't want to pick a fight.
I accept their rationalization might be different. But it always is. Everybody thinks they wear a white hat.
Its called Earth, where using ability to sexually manipulate women as the yardstick to measure your personal development is, for reasons which should be quite obvious, seen as misogyny (or, more precisely, objectification of women.)
Is it impossible for there to be such a thing as pick-up artistry amongst members of the homosexual community? I bet it's just a magical thing that happens in the LGBT community, where courtship is preternaturally effortless. Perhaps, it's not even a learned behavior, to attract sexual partners?
Are heterosexual women incapable of manipulative behavior? Is there no such thing? ...but if that's true, wouldn't that damage any purported premise of equality?
1. the hatred of women.
n. hatred of or hostility toward women.[2, emphasis added]
It's strange how half the people who read this book ended up infatuated with the over-glamorized lifestyle of the "pickup artist" and missed the tale of the value of being yourself.
Yes, he realised that the culture of trying to trick women into bed via tricks or routines was wrong, and the people who went down that path had flawed, weak personalities. It's interesting that on HN we tend to laud people who try to "hack the system" - but it's a shortcut, it's not real, and even if you succeed you can't handle it when you get there.
He realised that the real way to "win" women was to be yourself, the very best version of yourself you could manage. That is the central truth to which I was trying to refer. If you want to get the girls, be cool and confident and popular and successful. If that doesn't drive at least 50% of the startup community then I don't know what does.
I think we actually agree, except you have picked up a negative bias somewhere that I don't have. I liked that book very much. I have never been, nor want to be, a "PUA" but by god do I understand the sentiment.
For me that book shone a really bright light on a community, and its two types of citizens - the "wantrepreneurs" who would try to trick their way to success, and the really serious guys who changed their whole lives to succeed.
I saw obvious parallels between them and the startup community. And, yes, I suppose, serial killers and any other community who wants to succeed.
Curious as to what you found was negative and why.
In my opinion, diluting a relationship down to scientific behaviors and applying that to your relationships is dehumanizing and disingenuous. I don't want to associate with people like that.
If I found an asshole that does tip, would that destroy your theory?
Since I imagine most guys come to the PUA community because those traits relegate them to a life of loneliness and zero ass, I would think that their real goal is to transcend those traits altogether and to become better people. It's what PUA nirvana must be.
I mean, what you suggest here is that people are manipulative and sad before they become involved in the PUA community, and that the joining of said community is an attempt to free them of these negative traits?
I get confused by this logic because as far as I can tell the PUA community endorses manipulative and dishonest behavior, so what you're suggesting is that these lonely, manipulative, people, can transcend their manipulative behavior through more manipulative behavior.
A subset of "the PUA community" do that, but there is nothing inherent about "learning PUA" that implies any dishonesty or manipulation. More than anything, it's about gaining confidence, learning some basic etiquette, grooming essentials, and a little bit of other stuff. It's Pareto's Law in action... 80% of your improvement at meeting women comes from 20% of the "stuff" that could potentially learn from PUAs. Better posture, better clothes, a fresh haircut, smiling more, and not being scared of, or intimidated by, beautiful women, is the heart of PUA-dom.
And to be quite frank, these days, the "PUA community" has really outgrown it's roots and become the "male self-help and improvement community". Lurk on many "PUA" forums and you'll find guys talking more about how to start businesses and make more money, than the ones swapping "routines" or whatever.
I haven't seen anything "manipulative and dishonest" on Tynan's blog, nor in his books. Well, at some level everything we do to influence another person is "manipulative," but that's such a broad definition as to be useless.
All social interactions at some level of depth eventually involve pursuasion of a sort. The question is when does that become unethical?
Truly A question we all must answer for ourselves.
Figure 1: http://www.mendaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Katy-Perr...
Figure 2: http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/katyperrynomakeup.jpg
Picking up girls, and selling are very similar, and you can often cross use the techniques you learn.
Is selling dishonest? It is if you lie and shit.
Is it manipulative? What the hell does that really mean? When we interact with the world and people, we are by definition manipulating it.
If you show up to a party and act retarded, you are manipulating people into thinking you're a retard.
If you show up to a party and act cool, interesting, fun, you are manipulating people into thinking you're that.
Is the latter form of manipulation considered "bad" because you aren't cool, interesting, and fun all the time? No one is 100% of the time, we all have different emotional states, at different times.
Why is selling yourself wrong then? There's pretty much nothing wrong with that as long as you don't have STDs (and even that's ok if you mention it) or are a serial killer or something.
No, it doesn't. More than any single other thing, "being a PUA" is about learning not to be scared of / intimidated by, women. And about learning not to supplicate and do stupid shit, in order to try to manipulate women into having sex with you. The thing is, most so called "nice guys" are far more manipulative than a PUA! They just aren't as honest with themselves, OR the person they're trying to connect with.
2. The comment you're responding to says, "Anyone who is a pickup artist is an asshole", which is synonymous with "All PUAs are assholes", so you haven't contradicted his point.
When I've been on cruises (this dates back to as early as 2002 iirc) I've always been concerned with this.
And there are times as well (when sailing) that you are out of reach by satellite and have no connectivity at all. Unless things have changed you aren't going to be streaming video or doing anything that requires bandwidth. Once again, from my experience, things could have changed as I haven't cruised in at least 4 years.
With respect to internet on cruises it's a totally YMMV. I was concerned enough about access that I actually tracked down and contacted the operator of the service  for the particular ship I was on (and they do this for many cruise lines) and spoke to an engineer to ask questions before taking a particular cruise. I wasn't going to rely on what the cruise ship customer service told me. One of the questions I had was "do you block any ports"? The engineer (quite knowledgeable not customer service but engineering) said they didn't but it turned out that (at the time) they blocked anything that carried voice or obviously video (like ichat, skype etc.). Have no idea if that is still the case.
But here is the strangest thing. Back in perhaps 2004 on a particular ship you couldn't (get this) connect by wifi with a Mac!.
That's right you had to have a windows machine to connect to the ships wifi. Made no sense. But true. Nobody on the ship with a mac could connect only PC laptops. Ended up having to use the crap in the "Internet Cafe" which made 1996 using AOL seem quick. Literally couldn't even get email during certain times since all ship traffic went through one pipe.
For the next cruise I also brought a PC laptop. (But on that ship I didn't need it).
 It was this company: http://www.mtnsat.com/
On most major lines, the cleaning, etc. staff get reprimanded if they receive reviews from their passengers that are less than 5 stars. Even if it's only 4/5 (or the equivalent), they are expected to keep "perfect" ratings and are punished if they don't.
Cruises end up being a convenient way for my family to take vacations for a number of reasons (not the least being that my grandmother has limited mobility and cannot enjoy other vacation destinations as easily), but I always feel very guilty every time I go, because I see firsthand how badly the staff are exploited.
(Also, if you never want to go on a cruise line again, read the chapter in Tina Fey's "Bossypants" about her experience the one and only time she took a cruise.)
As for the (lack of) connectivity, I actually like this feature. When I go on a vacation, I enjoy being completely disconnected from the "real world". I find that, after a week of this, I wind up completely refreshed and come back to work more productive than if my attention had been split. But YMMV.
You have to consider any situation holistically. What you call exploitation is often a tremendous improvement over the alternatives those folks have in their countries of origin.
Go on the cruise, tip well, and be polite to staff.
To consider the situation holistically would mean to look at the global system of capitalism bootstrapped by years of outright colonization and exploitation that lead to the situation where doing low-skilled manual labour is considered an improvement in lifestyle for otherwise healthy and able individuals -- rather than (say) getting free, high-quality education or vocational training and a reasonable share of the improvements in life style industrialization and science have enabled.
I'm not buying into the idea that not going on a cruise would improve things, and I'm not even saying don't go on cruises -- but why delude yourself that exploiting people is ok, just because someone else have set the stage for doing so? It doesn't stop being exploitation just because someone comes from a worse situation than they're in now. That just makes participating in the exploitation is a rational choice by the one being exploited -- it doesn't make it a moral choice by the exploiter...
As for the more fundamental question of "why can't we just all get along?" -- we'll just have to keep working on it...
Even if somehow the whole world were to switch instantaneously to the state of anarchy, it would be a very short matter of time before someone internally decided to take over and enforce rules with the threat of violence. This person would then be the "government."
As for Communism, Armenian radio listener calls in and says, "We are told that true Communism is just on the horizon now. I ask, what is horizon?" We reply, "Horizon is imaginary line that always recedes as you approach it."
The fundamental misapprehension at work here is confusing two meanings of the word "system." There are systems created by humans, such as "the justice system of Japan." We can change those, since they derive entirely from human control. Then, there are emergent or natural systems, such as gravity. These cannot be changed simply because people decide they don't like them.
Capitalism is of the latter category. It is not a human-created system; it did not emerge from colonialism. It is merely the natural emergent behavior of actors under resource scarcity. As long as there are not enough resources for everyone to have what they want, there will be some variant of a market and capitalistic trade. It is not possible to alter this scenario simply because it doesn't seem pleasant; that's wishful thinking. All that can be done is to make the market more or less efficient.
The Soviet Union and North Korea, for example, have always had internal capitalist black markets, despite massive penalties. Prisons have internal black markets. Countries that try to control their currency's value have massive internal black markets for hard currency. Cocaine is readily available for a price almost everywhere in the world, despite massive and coordinated efforts to suppress that market.
The reverse also applies; in the absence of actual scarcity, it is impossible to enforce a market, since that is an emergent property of scarcity rather than a human-chosen system. Illegal music and movie trading online, for example, continue to grow despite massive efforts to prop up the market, because there is no actual scarcity.
it would be a very short matter of time before someone internally decided to take over and enforce rules with the threat of violence
Maybe, but then again that's what the conventional wisdom said about the Americans a couple hundred years ago. It was thought by intellectuals that so much individual freedom couldn't last very long. Yes, we've shifted pretty far toward socialism for the past hundred years. But I'd argue that if it weren't for the evil seed of slavery, we would never have had the Civil War and we wouldn't be dealing with the steady advance of the state.
1) I didn't mean to imply that capitalism emerged from colonialism, but
that the current distribution of wealth an power within capitalism is
connected to colonialism (among other things).
2) I don't think you're assertion of capitalism being "an emergent system"
is correct -- capitalism is defined by having capital and private
ownership over means of production. There are many other systems for
regulating scarcity (artificial or otherwise) (eg: feudalism).
> As long as there are not enough resources for everyone to have what
> they want, there will be some variant of a market and capitalistic
> trade. The reverse also applies; in the absence of actual scarcity,
> it is impossible to enforce a market, since that is an emergent
> property of scarcity rather than a human-chosen system.
3) You imply that there aren't enough resources. While that may be
true, I think the issue is more one of uneven distribution. This
obviously also depend on your clause "for everyone to have what they
want". I think the current system encourages aggregation without much
regard for what individuals actually want (Who "wants" Foxxconn to
dominate in certain areas of industrial production?).
4) Not all markets and trade systems define a capitalist system.
Note also that I specifically said modern anarchism. That doesn't
necessarily define away the right to self defence. Communism certainly
The main difference between the two, is that communism seeks to
maintain a form of government, highly localized and highly democratic
-- but with the option to retain such things as a police force and a
justice system (reserve the right of the government to use violence such
as detaining and investigation of crimes for the common good) while
anarchism is generally more sceptical of any power structure and any
use of force against the individual.
I don't accept your interpretation of "exploiting".
They have jobs. They get paid for their jobs. They're getting paid more by doing their jobs than whatever alternatives they had since this isn't slave labor.
You're redefining what "exploiting" means and you're casually throwing concepts around like the perpetual victim status of entire societies due to colonialization.
Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA were colonies too... we got over it.
If there's an evil in the whole colonial relationship, it's do-gooder Westerners who think they should care for and dictate to other societies rather than just letting them get jobs, sell their products, sell services, compete on the worlds stage, learn lessons, improve their lot, etc.
For Canada and the USA at least, I think it's a little strong to say that the indigenous inhabitants "got over it".
I hate this kind of thing. Why do we allow this sort of situation, where fear of lawsuits results in worse response/care?
I don't know exactly what would need to change, but this the legal process at its worst.
2) I'm not an American but I think your legal system is very good and many objective people do too: http://www.quora.com/Litigation-and-Lawsuits/Why-are-America...
3) I'd recommend anyone to watch Hot Coffee  which documents the lobbying and spin that encourages American citizens to think there is a problem with "frivolous lawsuits"
I was more upset with them trying to bill us three months later. We had filed a formal complaint on our last day of the trip over the poor response and had spoken with one of the guest services managers for close to 30 minutes. So when a letter from the cruise line came three months later, I was expecting an apology, not a bill.
When this happened, my wife was in the final year of law school, so our response to the bill was probably atypical of a normal customer response, but even when they told us we wouldn't be responsible for the money and that they'd give us a credit for a future cruise, they still made sure to dismiss their liability and deny that they breached any duties.
One of the gross things with the incident was that another passenger started cleaning up the blood because no crew was doing it. Another passenger was a doctor and stepped in to help stop the bleeding while we waited for a wheelchair to take us to the doctor.
The part where the cup disintegrates and leaves the person with 3rd degree burns on their crotch would be the highlight. The punch line would be the owner of the store saving $10 on coffee costs per month because he keeps the coffee too hot.
I suspect that going into "don't get sued" mode actually encourages lawsuits.
I read an article a while back that indicated the doctors with the highest rate of malpractice suits were not the ones who made the most errors but the ones who were the least empathetic. There has been at least one study that concluded insensitivity and poor communication after the incident was a major factor in the decision to sue.
The service staff work for tips. No wages. No benefits.
I was shocked when I first heard this. I asked around, a lot. Everyone confirmed.
I personally hate the cruise ship experience. The master/servant dynamic makes me very uncomfortable.
That their working conditions are only mostly terrible is sufficient for me to act on my values.
I'll give analogy. WalMart screws their workers, their suppliers, and their host governments (and by extension us tax payers). Not in every case. But enough to piss me off.
So, yea, I'm not shopping at WalMart. Maybe they're not all bad. Sorting it all out is too much work. Especially when I have plenty of options that are mostly good.
I worked remotely from a cruise ship that went around Hawaii for a week in 2007 (long story). I had a small Verizon cellular router that I set up in my room. It worked well enough, and I didn't have to use the ship's (presumably) crappy wi-fi, or pay by the minute or whatever.
Plus, when I'm coding, my bandwidth needs aren't that great.
I'd assume that using your phone as a hotspot today would work equally well in that scenario.