Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | ryanklee's commentslogin

> if it keeps increasing that fast

Any reason you can give that it would?


If the tech bubble doesn't pop ?


> At this rate

Be wary of any trend extrapolation. Better to figure out the dynamics underlying changes.

In this case, the rate will change way before rents have the chance to double. Rental markets are cyclical. In simple terms: They go up; they become unattractive to renters; they go back down.


There's no doubt that in many areas, including the San Francisco Bay Area, the current trend is not sustainable. But I think you're underestimating some fundamental shifts that have taken place that will put a floor under rents.

First, in the wake of the Great Recession, many folks are simply not able to buy homes. They can't meet more stringent lending standards and while there are efforts to make mortgages more accessible, a repeat of what you saw in the last housing bubble isn't likely any time soon. Making matters worse for folks still getting their financial footing is that home prices have appreciated considerably over the past several years.

Second, you need to consider demographics. Most young people can't afford to buy homes (more and more of them are living with their parents into their late 20s and 30s), and surveys indicate that home ownership is generally less important to younger people.

Finally, in some areas, including some of the most desirable parts of the Bay Area, there is realistically not going to be a significant increase in supply any time soon, so demand is likely to exceed supply for the foreseeable future.

Obviously, another recession would put a damper on things and double digit decreases in average rents are even possible in the hottest markets under such a scenario, but people waiting for $1,500 studio apartments in San Francisco shouldn't hold their breath.


Putting aside the anecdotal nature of your comment, it raises the question of whether, because McKenna was "worried" about a causal relation between his brain cancer and prior cannabis use, he ceased smoking post-diagnosis.

If so, that would certainly complicate what I'm assuming you're implying, that McKenna's case runs counter to the [edit: findings communicated in the] HuffPo article...

Edit: Also, it's significant that the treatment in the study was a "combination of radiation and two different marijuana compounds", not simply a correlation to historical cannabis use.


>you can't get focus to deal with it... working out a series of things to do to contain the task... brainstorm simple things I could do around my outcome... writing a paragraph about why it feels hard... string together four or five tasks... Come back after rest for another go.

This is not what I consider procrastination, and I consider myself a major procrastinator, struggling constantly with time management issues because of it.

What you are describing is a context of ancillary effort surrounding the task. These are Things Being Done To Do The Thing.

Necessary but insufficient. Secondary, but nonetheless essential.

Procrastination, on the other hand, is the Absolute Evasion Of All Things Related To The Task At Hand.

Not lead up. Not preparation. Not sequencing. Not anything.

Anything But.

Do Something, but make damn well sure it's Not The Thing That Relates To What You Ought To Be Doing.

Email fidgeting. Netflix grazing. Guitar strumming. Water boiling watching. But not The Thing. And not Near The Thing.

Anything But The Thing.

This is doubly hard when creative (read: conceptual, thinking, fuzzy, ethereal, imaginative) work is The Thing To Be Done. Because sometimes Not Doing The Thing is what Needs To Be Done To Do It.

But just as often, oh man, do we like to fool ourselves into even avoiding Not Doing The Thing Needed To Do the Thing We Need To Do by simply Not Even Doing That.

If you pack batteries all day into tiny boxes in a warehouse filled with angry and watchful foremen (I've done this), there's no possibility for confusion between Getting It Done and Not Getting It Done.

But if you've got 600 words to write on how SEC New Rule 506(c) pertains to real estate crowdfunding, who's to say that sitting on your ass and watching 7 episodes of Adventure Time isn't integral to your effort. (It's not. But still, who's to say?)

Don't even get me started on billable hours. That's a whole nother can of worms.


What you describe here my friend, doesn't seem to be procrastination. The above are pretty much all the hallmark signs of resistance. An interesting read; "The war of Art" -Steven Pressfield.

edit: care to explain the downvote?


Also not the downvoter, but I can also see why. Your comment doesn't really give me much to understand or respond to. What do you mean by it is not procrastination? You're going to have to explain that. The only thing I could about resistance in the sense you use was a small paragraph on Wikipedia about a term coined by Steven Pressfield. So it's probably not something known by anyone who has not read that book (which does seem interesting by the way, thank you). Even then, the way it was described, it doesn't sound like procrastination and resistance need to be mutually exclusive.

Also looking into it (just based on the wiki blurb, not having read the book. So it's entirely possible I'm misunderstanding it). But a "universal force that he claims acts against human creativity" sounds cheesy. There's no external force acting against me when I watch Adventure Time instead of accomplishing something (I'm guilty of that too), or browse HN while at the office. I'm just being lazy and doing something easy and enjoyable, instead of something hard but beneficial. And that matches the definition of procrastination pretty well.


Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, I really appreciate the feedback. I shall ensure replies are more thought out in future. Sometimes it takes someone pointing something out to me, to allow me to course correct and I thank you.

I guess I really connected with what you said and it was well written. You said it in a way that would take me quite some time to get across, and described it much better than I could. That blended pretty well with my own experiences. I could procrastinate about procrastinating myself, it's not a good place and a frustrating feeling. I tried to read as many books and read about as many other people as possible to try better my understanding of why I do it so much, so often, despite me knowing a lot of data about it. I believe what Petsfold is trying to do is to personify procrastination to a recongizable point, like a character, so you can consciously choose to not let that character win. That's my main takeaway from the book. It's certainly helped me. I still procrastinate, but I feel like I know a little more. Almost like "what is it I'm resisting about x that's making me procrastinate so much". This can sometimes, not always, help me identify and act on variables that might be affecting me at that moment in time. Best of luck, and thank you again.


I've read "Do The Work", the later, shorter companion to "The War of Art". Resistance and procrastination and related, but not identical. You get resistance about creative acts that expose you to public assessment of your work, or really anything that might upset the status quo in your life. Sure, you can procrastinate about a 600 word article or a term paper. But when you avoid even starting to write your first novel, or coding on your side project startup, that's getting into resistance. I think the more ego we wrap up into a task, the more resistance rears its ugly head.


It wasn't me, but you posed an non-intuitive distinction without explaining it, which makes it difficult to discern what you're trying to claim.


Yes, and if you live (actively) in any mid-tier city for any appreciable amount time, recommendations become superfluous, because you basically know every establishment in the city, what's trending, what's not, and where to go (and where not to go) to get what you want. For food, clothing and goods. Whatever. And when something new opens up, you hear it about it. Friends give you the rundown, judgements proliferate, etc. I don't have a use for Foursquare or Yelp and, as far as I know, none of my friends do either.

(For size reference, I live in Baltimore, MD.)

Edit: I'll add, too, that "check ins" that get posted socially seem to be viewed increasingly as self-indulgent "look at me and my lovely life" signals.

There was a time that such posts, along with "pics of my delicious dinner at trendy restaurant", etc., were regular and acceptable. That time is quickly passing, I think.

The analogy is talking about how much money you have, or how cultural you are, etc. This isn't really polite and most people secretly roll their eyes in response to it. It appears either calculated or in incognizantly bad taste.

This is just an anecdotal observation, of course. But these kinds of things have basically disappeared from my feed, which might just be an effect of an aging list of friends rather than a broader usage pattern. I suspect it's a generally emerging standard of social media etiquette though.


On the social point... I like foursquare type check-in apps because they work to segregate check-in activity for people who're interested in it. I don't post "I'm at Restaurant X!" on facebook/twitter, because I'd feel like I was spamming people... but if I check in there on foursquare, I know that the people who see that are other people who've decided they want to use foursquare. It's still a social sharing activity, but it's done with a carefully selected subgroup.


I never check into restaurants -- I don't see the point. But I regularly check yelp to see reviews of new restaurants that spring up. Then I go check out the new restaurants with good reviews. (I live in Chicago.)


In Chicago, and cities of that size, this makes a lot of sense. It's a huge city. You can live there for decades and still not have a handle on everything. There's too much for word of mouth to render Yelp unnecessary. I'd use it, too, if I weren't in a city 1/10th the size of Chicago.


I'm sorry that I don't have the required knowledge to add to what you've said here, but I have a digressive question: what fields have you worked in and what is your current occupation?

I ask because the topical breadth of your comments is absolutely astounding to me.

Please don't take this in too saccharine or fawning of a manner, but I could only hope to be as generally knowledgeable and contributory as you appear to be were I to buckle down and work my inquisitive ass off for the next 5 decades.

Anyways, I always look forward to your comments. Thanks for them, regardless of how you manage to dish them out.

If you have a blog, I'd be a happy subscriber.

Edit: I read your extensive profile, which answers my questions as to your experience. No need to reply if there's nothing of interest to add :-)


> anecdotally

Yeah, I'd say.

Sometimes anecdotes are useful, revealing something interesting about a person's experience in the world. Here, you've done something very unfair: extrapolate from very a very small perspective into a very large idea of what the world is like.

Psychology is a rich field with diverse practitioners. Rational, data driven, empirical methods underpin psych research as anywhere in the sciences.

And where this isn't true, where Freudians and Jungians, etc., hold sway, there's something interesting going on there, too. Mushy and soft and philosophical and silly as it might be.

Don't discount the value of centuries of inquiry and practice because you know a half dozen idiot psychologists that believe in astrology. This is not a representative or useful sample.


well, you scooted right on by my point, which is in the second paragraph. are you a Capricorn?


If I have a digital copy, it's important for me to have a physical copy, as well.

At different times, I prefer different media.

Until I can buy a book and get a digital version for either free or for a (very) small added fee, I'm just not getting on board with kindles (or whatever e-reader device).

Amazon did roll out some version of this book+ebook service a few months ago, but it included such a small number of volumes that it was virtually worthless.


It's dependent on publishers. At any time you can ask Amazon to search through your _entire_ history of Amazon print purchases and it will give you free access to the Kindle versions, if the publisher enabled this feature.


Yup, I know. But out of the hundreds of books I've purchased through Amazon, only a small handful offer free Kindle versions.

The complications between Amazon and publishers are deep and messy and I surely won't get what I want as a consumer for some time, if ever.

Just thinking about the ideal situation for me, however unrealistic it is.


Yes, but only to the extent that they themselves aren't willingly paying for the convenience of having somebody else do something for them.

When they are, well, that's just common sense. When they aren't, well, those who do otherwise are just being indulgent.

Housekeeper? Indulgent. Startbucks coffee? Convenient.

The (social) legitimacy of expenditures is usually a matter of custom, not economic analysis.


I'm interested to hear from those who voted this comment down: Why?

The parent's comment, even if disagreeable in some regards, is substantial and the discussion is better for it having been made.


Discussions surrounding threat mitigation and risk mitigation are uniformly one sided on HN, and even the most delicate walk down the line of acceptable mitigation is shunned.

The more interesting point is the inverse position of the community in regards to network and systems security, in which all measures of threat mitigation are encouraged or "required".


Discussions of threat mitigation are irrelevant so long as the threats and their countermeasures remain undisclosed. There can be no productive debate when one side knows everything and tells the other side nothing.

It doesn't matter if surveillance is used only for good (evidence suggests otherwise, though); if the surveillance organizations have all the power to operate in secrecy and distort the truth when questioned by the legislature, their "trust us" assurances are wholly untrustworthy.


It's naive to the point of absurdity. It's basically saying:

The NSA/CIA/FBI/etc. couldn't even see Ukraine coming! They were on their coffee breaks, those silly spooks! They never get anything right do they? So don't worry about them collecting information on you! They couldn't even find Osama! Those slackers. Don't worry be happy!"

The stupidest assumption one can make about a powerful organization is that it's incompetent and thus benign. Crack open a history book to see how benign power really can be.


Observing everyone isn't about targeting everyone, it's about targeting anyone. So even if they really did miss Ukraine, that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about them recording everything else.



Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact