I feel like a lot of the comments here are focused on HN part of the problem, but I would imagine if you didn’t have HN you’d have something else to distract yourself with.
I don’t have an answer, but I know of a small minority of SWEs that suffer deeply from this.
> I feel like a lot of the comments here are focused on HN
And I've been downvoted for it. Yes, it is not the problem. But why not accept the design could be healthier? aren't this what hackers do, design better systems? what is better that healthier?
HN is not helping alleviate this "mental-health" related issue because:
- The high throughput of "anything goes" (i.e. no categories) posts may push some to try and be always watchful to catch that "needle in the haystack"
- The very-short half-life of threads will draw people to want to always be on, to "hop on that fast discussions train" in time.
- That Karma system will trigger, for some hardcore users, an unconscious continuous urge to get more of it.
People with "issues" are very vulnerable to these kinds of "games". But it is not a binary thing : IMHO We are all to a variable degree affected.
I think you've been downvoted because HN is already among the most "healthy" designed social sites out there, if not the top, so pointing out it could be "healthier" still is a bit of an eye roll.
I mean yeah sure but really? It's already as deliberately spartan as it can get. You don't even get notified of comment replies.
If someone's degree of self control is so poor they are addicted to HN it's not HN that should change, it's the user that needs to develop some modicum of self control and discipline.
> It's already as deliberately spartan as it can get.
I don't agree. Minimalism (feature-wise) does not equal a better design (or a healthier one for that matter)
This is not a "Chair" (more like a flood...). By definition, People with "issues" (like in this thread) lack that "self-control" to deal with it. I was just pointing to where IMO the weak spots could be.
I guess all this just does not make any sense for users who are accustomed to this HN system for years : As well adjusted (themselves) AND well-adjusted to it (not the same thing), they can afford to roll their eyes.
The philosophies aren’t related beyond the fact that EA seems to view making as much money as possible a virtue if you use the money effectively, and the crypto space has happened to be the place where people are making the most money the fastest.
"Using the money effectively" is the operative point: as more and more of the money in the EA sphere comes from cryptocurrencies (and other civically corrosive sources), the EA movement's notion of "effective use" seems to loosen.
Roommate in each state allows more spreading of the cost, but it's more likely that you and one of the roommates are in the home at the same time. Presumably each of those roommates would be treating each home as their primary residence.
With the originally proposed setup, there's a fair chance that you are in SF while the sole "roommate" is in NYC and vice versa.
Yup, that’s it exactly. There’s a good chance that you would be alone in one city or the other. And in theory you could both treat the second room as a guest room. With consent, etc.
Can you give some reqs on what your monitoring system looks like?
I've been wanting to monitor our house's air quality for a while, but usually get put off looking at how poorly most affordable air quality monitors are reviewed.
Also, what metrics are most important? There's monitoring out there for pm2.5, pm10, HCHO, CO2, AQI, TVOC, etc, it's a bit of an alphabet soup.
Matt Levine is funny and interesting. He can be hard to follow, but only because he talks about really complicated things. No one can explain it better than he does.
Important context for those considering it: Bloom's book was seen as a rejection of those bringing new voices (i.e., non-white, non-male) into the 'canon'; it was popular among conservative culture warriors. That doesn't disqualify it, but understand Bloom might be injecting some politics into it.
I don't think so. Supporters may think Bloom's conservative position stands 'above' insufferable woke politics or something like that. In fact the politics has already been brought, so to speak, and is now inescapable. Perhaps Bloom was not the first one to inject 'politics', but once the new ideas have been brought, rejecting them is reaction and political too.
Why post that? Do you think the world is unaware that you exist, a conservative culture warrior or fellow traveler? Does it add anything but inflammatory politics?
I intended nothing either way; I was informing people about the book. Please don't include me in your politicize-everything motivations.
The reason I posted was to point out that the context you provided was unnecessary and even counter-productive. In light of your response, in particular the blatantly obvious projection, I believe I was correct in my read of your intentions.
Reading other people's minds is a fool's errand, and you got the appropriate result - you are wrong. If you thought it was counter-productive, etc., just say so.
Context is an essential part of meaning. If you don't know the context of something, you are going to misunderstand and be misled. If I yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater, it means something different than it does at a gun range, or huddled over some kindling in in driving rainstorm at a campsite. In this case, the context was political. We need to be able to talk about politics without actually doing it; some try to pretend politics doesn't exist, but that's a lie. It seems to me that you felt that it could not be talked about, it had to be done. Don't try to impose that on me, please.
Someone bought that for me years ago and it s*at me to tears reading his deep thoughts. Paraphrasing: You should read literature to come to grips with your own death. But took about 100 pages to say so with the most meandering, tangential, irrelevant segway loaded prose that was utterly stultifying. Such as you might get from someone desperate to prove how incredibly clever they are rather than filling the role they claim to be filling.
I stopped reading it with the idea that just about anybody's else's list would likely be superior.
Obviously YMMV. Brought back the memory seeing it here. Would be really interested if someone had a different reaction to it.
>the goal of those systems tend to be to pre-emptively be ready for v-next and handle all of the requirements as cleanly as possible, and future requirements as cleanly as possible.
>He greatly prefers to start hacking on a solution quickly and get something building and then work in the nuance and ugly later, refactoring whole sections over time to get a better and better solution.
I think you've articulated a dimension of programming that I've increasingly been observing and discussing with other engineers.
Do you happen to know a name for (or any language to describe) this kind of spectrum of problem solving where one end tends to pre-emptively encompass as many edge cases and future versions as possible, while the other focuses solely on the most obvious use case initially, adding in each edge case in successive versions of a "working" product (where working is used very loosely (i.e. single pixel on a screen is a "working" initial version))?
I definitely fall into the latter category, and find it very frustrating to work with engineers who want to chat edge cases that are days, weeks, or even months away from being relevant in my eyes. I would like to understand their thinking and this space of meta-problem solving better, but I'm not really sure what to call what we're talking about.
reply