It's not unreasonable to expect certain behavior in a shared space.
I'm really not sure where some of the other people replying to your comment are coming from. Forcing every human and animal you come across to listen to what you're listening to is selfish. Full stop. And not doing it costs $0, which preempts any question of resources.
There are so many types of headphones that don't isolate much, including the cheapest crappy on-ears from the walkman era, there's really no excuse.
And on the few occasions where I've had no other option, it made so much more sense to set my phone to low volume and bring it close to my ear instead of holding it iut and maxing the volume.
And if I need to talk as well, many people don't know this, but there's a second smaller speaker on the opposite end of the phone, approximately one mouth-ear distance away from the microphone.
I've posted this thought a few times in different ways, but in my experience, community is found and then built.
Regularly sharing space with others is the way to start finding community. I think your surveying is an example of that. The next step is when the interactions begin taking place outside of the regular time/place, as evidenced by your epilogue.
What I haven't posted before is anything about how to successfully create those connections. Maybe we get lucky and someone will share our taste in music or movies or what have you, and the connection will be almost effortless. But to increase the rate of connection, I've found that learning to ask good questions is key.
We can learn a lot from popular interviewers like Terry Gross, Johnny Carson, or James Lipton. But to provide some direct tips: Lead with open-ended questions (i.e. not "yes or no"). Ask follow-up questions. Share a little bit while asking questions (e.g. "I'm not really into X music, more Y. Where would I start if I wanted to listen to X?")
Of course, sometimes friendships just aren't meant to be. It's tough, and can feel like a waste of time to have made the connection, but I've been surprised multiple times when a conversation that seemed like a slog of a one-off led to fruitful friendships later.
Given this is Hacker News, is there any way to "hack" the housing market to reduce costs?
Every hurdle I see seems to come back to a policy or regulatory issue. Whether it's increasing housing density, utilizing vacant spaces, or increasing transit to existing cultural/economic centers, the answer somehow requires the government.
It's not something I relish, but as I sit here tonight, I think of the rented RVs parked on the overpasses of Los Angeles. Is that model ripe for disruption? Housing not tied to real estate. Could Adam Neumann buy enough chic RVs and parking garages and make a business out of it? I think if you had enough runway, you could get the momentum, and if a city government pitched a fit, you could move out the RVs (and young professionals), and still own the parking garage. Nomadland as a service.
I hope the work of urbanists like Strong Towns makes this a non-issue. But if anyone has any other radical housing ideas that don't involve getting a government on board, I'd love to hear them.
Trailer parks have prefabricated housing rather than true trailers. These prefabs can technically be moved, but not easily or cheaply, essentially tying them to the lot. RVs can be moved easily and cheaply.
So no, this is not exactly a trailer park because it separates housing from the real estate.
I'm not pitching the RV Parking Garage concept as an ideal or even plausible solution, but as an example of a way to disrupt the housing market in developed metros.
My goal is to hear some other ideas to decrease average rents while requiring little to no government/regulatory involvement.
> requiring little to no government/regulatory involvement
I think you lose this battle as soon as you start providing residences to people. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that once people are living and sleeping somewhere you’re subject to zoning laws and fire codes and stuff.
With that said, the current housing situation in the US is a mess, so I’m all for reform. I’d like to hear ideas too. I personally can’t think of a solution that sidesteps regulation without becoming a slum full of desperate people, though.
Those desperate people are who most need help. Maybe improving the quality of life in "slums" is where the hacking should take place. But those improvements typically leads to gentrification and higher average rents.
Is there a way to hack governmental reform? Maybe an organization that hires lawyers to find weak zoning laws in jurisdictions where a challenge is likely to succeed, and then tests those laws in court? (Now I've reinvented a thinktank.)
The State Department said[1]:
"The State Department will pause immigrant visa processing from 75 countries whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates."
Whether or not that's a good/true reason is another discussion.
"It's true that many younger buyers just don't have the same taste or sense of style as folks from previous generations. But also, young city-dwelling professionals are less likely to have the room to place a large screen in a dedicated area in their home, a pain point compounded by the fact that TV screen sizes have ballooned over the past decade."
If you find yourself in this position regarding taste or space, I'd encourage you to use a projector.
There is no 50+" black void hanging on your wall, so you don't need to have a nice picture to display instead. Sure, it can be more difficult to watch things during the daylight hours, but that's actually been a positive for me that leads to more intentional consumption.
Replacing my TV with a projector and muting my microwave are two actions that have had an unexpectedly huge impact on my quality of life.
Could someone with more familiarity in reading scientific papers tell me if the paper shows any material difference in the types of Bluetooth headphones tested (in-ear, over-head, neckband)?
It's shown in some of the figures, but all I found in the discussion section was: "Given the thyroid's high sensitivity to radiation, long-term exposure to NIR, especially from Bluetooth headphones worn close to the neck, might intensify the impact on this organ."
I've got a small Bluetooth receiver with a 3.5mm aux port that I'm planning on using with my wired over-head headphones, but my initial plan was mounting the receiver onto the headset itself. Maybe it would be better to keep it further away.
Or perhaps it doesn't really matter and time is the most important factor that I can control for (Figure 7).
"Thirty-eight percent of American adults listened to an audiobook in the last year, up from the 35% reported in 2023."[1]
"Roughly one is five American households listened to an audiobook within
the last year—23 million households. (Audio Publishers 2001 Consumer
Survey)"[2]
"'The best patrons are the best book-buyers. They’re avid readers who use
audiobooks to keep up when their eyes are busy,' says Mary Beth Roche,
president of the Audio Publishers Association. ('Commuter Consumer,'
The Washington Post, April 24, 2005)"[2]
Households and adults aren't exactly comparable, but it's a start. That last quote supports my personal, anecdotal findings that most audiobook listeners also read books.
Thanks! I got my elderly family member into them as he was going blind but still loves reading. Little trouble getting audible syncd to his ipad remotely but we got it working.
I'm really not sure where some of the other people replying to your comment are coming from. Forcing every human and animal you come across to listen to what you're listening to is selfish. Full stop. And not doing it costs $0, which preempts any question of resources.
reply