Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life is Short

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 452 posts

Re: Life is Short

#331

Post by jacquesm »

marincounty wrote: post #330
jacquesm wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a lot of assumptions here that you haven't a shred of proof for.

I read his essays, although just casually. His latest essay was assumptions? There was nothing factual in it, other than "Life is short." Yes, these are my observations. Yes--I have no proof on most of my assumptions. Doesn't negate the question, why we put so much worth in what these guys spout off? (I never return to argue. This was a fluke, because I was shocked so many of you got so riled up over PG's essay.)

I specifically take issue with you suggesting substance abuse on pg's part, not putting enough thought into these essays as well as being rattled by recent deaths of middle aged men, you haven't a leg to stand on unless you are a private close confidant of Paul and should retract those claims.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether I agree or not with what pg wrote, it is simply a matter of you being extremely careless with assigning attributes and states of mind to someone without having any knowledge of the surrounding facts.

In short: don't be an asshole.

Re: Life is Short

#332

Post by ZeroGravitas »

rukuu001 wrote: post #129
drhayes9 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From PG's essay "Economic Inequality": "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them... Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." This feels like the heart of that particular essay and displays a r…

Re: "Economic Inequality". I tend to read with a charitable eye, so I don't take the same meaning as yourself. But, he's chosen an expression that allows a lot of interpretation. The way I read it, I assume we're talking about a cohort, and the point is, on average, the least lazy of the cohort will probably do better.

The least lazy lottery players win more?

The least lazy people participating in a ponzi scheme get more money?

Obviously not, so what you're assuming and/or implying is that life is fair, that the rich deserve their success and the poor are lazy, which is exactly the point people are arguing, so you're begging the question.

Re: Life is Short

#333

Post by mahranch »

babuskov wrote: post #29
evgg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your reasoning behind labeling building one's own PCs as bullshit, as opposed to buying Macs?

When time is scarce, you start to prioritize things that are really important to you. If your main life goal is to ship great software, then building your own PC is just taking away precious time. As DHH said in Twist interview: "If you're not working on your best idea right now, you're doing it wrong"

> When time is scarce, you start to prioritize things that are really important to you.

It takes me ~10 minutes to shop online and buy the parts I need to put together my own PC. When I receive it, it takes me an additional 15 minutes to unbox it, and put it all together. Then another 30 installing the OS and all the programs I will need.

That's less than an hour. Given the price difference between a Mac and a PC with the same exact equipment (same CPU, RAM, HD, etc), we're looking at ~$250 USD on the low end and ~$550 USD on the high end. Unless you're making $250 USD (or more) per hour, it's most definitely cheaper time-wise to build your own PC.

Re: Life is Short

#334

Post by jacobolus »

dang wrote: post #279
jacobolus wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If extremely wealthy venture capitalists don’t want to have their motives questioned when they write essays full of unsupported and self-serving arguments and demonstrating a severe lack of empathy/social understanding, then they shouldn’t post them on the internet. Dan: I’m sure Paul Graham and this site will both be fine whether or not you you tell his critics to keep their opinions to themselves. (Side note: liter…

None of that addresses what I said.

Here’s a more carefully elaborated version of the criticism of Graham’s sloppy thinking and lazy writing from his inequality essay: https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2016/01/premises.html

Since life is short, that’s it for me for this thread.

Re: Life is Short

#335

Post by pythia__ »

vcarl wrote: post #36
anunumoose wrote: post #3

Mr Graham, I respect you and you've accomplished more that I will in my life, but I sincerely hope that this essay against "bullshit" and "arguing online" isn't you declaring that you'll be "bubbling" yourself after your last essay was met with wide disagreement. It's possible that sometimes, no matter how smart you are, your experiences have been limited in a way and you're missing a part of something everyone else…

I read some "rebuttals" to the previous essay, and while there were definitely some valid points brought up, a lot of them seemed to me to have misinterpreted a lot of what was said. PG tweeted about feeling like a lot of his side of the "debate" was pointing out that he hadn't said something. [1] [1]: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/688044252744527875

I think this is true but hardly surprising. The average participant in an argument on the Internet is interested not in the truth but in winning. Who wins an Internet argument is thought by that participant to be decided by the audience, which is less clever than the debaters and wants quick, emotionally satisfying resolutions. It is therefore a winning strategy for him or her to ignore nuance and instead attack straw men and try to humiliate the opponent. Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement is inverted on Twitter.

Thinking about this long enough makes large-scale democracy very scary because it operates in the same terms on the same media.

Re: Life is Short

#336

Post by jacquesm »

If you can't see past the link to the other essays here please try to isolate this one for a bit, especially if you're young and you don't have kids yet. This essay is rich in realizations that come with age, and in some sense I would have potentially gotten a lot of mileage out of it when I was 20 or so (but then I would probably have lacked the background to fully comprehend it), and even more when I was a young first time father.

One gem in here that has not been high-lit by other commenters in this thread that stands out for me because that's one that I did figure out very early on in life (and this served me very well) is this one:

"As I've written before, one byproduct of technical progress is that things we like tend to become more addictive. Which means we will increasingly have to make a conscious effort to avoid addictions—to stand outside ourselves and ask "is this how I want to be spending my time?""

Please do ask yourself that question often, and if the answer is 'no' or 'maybe' then simply don't and save yourself a lot of grief and regret in the long run.

Re: Life is Short

#337

Post by mercer »

sotojuan wrote: post #181
NhanH wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm very efficient with my time but if I made every second worthwhile, I'd go nuts. Sometimes BS time (videogames, the pub, etc) are necessary. Be careful with equating "unproductive" and bullshit. Society at large only cares about your productivity, and there is always pressure for you to do "productive" thing that advances some imaginary life ladder. From your POV and benefits, all those productive things might a…

Yeah. I don't consider playing video games for an hour or so to wind down "bullshit", provided they do not stop me from achieving my daily goals. Not only are "unproductive" activities like film, video games, socializing/hanging out very enjoyable for me, but the most interesting people I've met do a lot of them. All in moderation.

A few years ago I finished my studies and became a freelancer. It took me until this year to realize that in the effort to 'value' my hours, I forgot how essential and valuable it is to spend time doing things that are relaxing and that might seem unproductive at first sight.

It reached a point where I would often work in the weekends, forego any vacation, feel guilty about the hours I did 'nothing' (out of sheer necessity), and sometimes even apply a little too much pragmatism to my friendships. I'd ask myself if the interactions were useful or somehow furthered my personal development or career, and forget that, while this is not an unimportant question, the value of a friendship can be the time spent enjoying each other's company.

This important realization came after I had worked a lot, built a relatively stable career with enough clients and a good portfolio, saved up enough money to allow me to not work for at least a year. I had reached my goals, so to speak.

But instead of stopping work and doing things I always put off, or creating things I'd been wanting to create for a long time, I ended up with a (mild) burn-out and a severe existential crisis: now that I had nothing to really worry about, I had no clue what to do with that freedom.

What am I, and what do I enjoy doing, after years of neglecting to explore this?

Currently I'm working on finding more balance, and savoring the little and big things in life. But even now, I need to make sure I have some work because when I stop, my mind just kind of panics from the freedom I have. So I'm taking it one step at a time.

Picking up gaming again has been one of those things I savor again.

Re: Life is Short

#338

Post by jacquesm »

iiiggglll wrote: post #130
S4M wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally didn't like too much that essay about inequalities, but I think your comment is unnecessarily nasty. I believe arguing with commenters like you is exactly the bullshit PG mentioned.

His tone might seem unnecessarily harsh at first, but when taken in context of the amount of ass-kissing that goes on here, it starts to seem more like an appropriate counterweight.

Just like it is possible to disagree respectfully it is probably un-wise to take the position that calling out those that are resorting to personal attacks and outright bile implies agreement.

So yes, that tone was too harsh and in fact entirely in-appropriate.

Re: Life is Short

#339

Post by FatalBaboon »

It is funny how one of the top comment is a very long debate about how this article is good or not, completely missing the point.

The sooner you realize life is short, the more you will make smart use of your time.

The same goes for faith: the sooner you realize there is no life after death, the more you will make smart use of your time. Your brain runs out of electricity and fluids, and poof you go.

Re: Life is Short

#340

Post by palish »

dang wrote: post #266
invalidOrTaken wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a hostile interpretation of the essay.

Indeed—so hostile that it can only be deliberate. It's an example of why we will probably add the Principle of Charity to the HN guidelines: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html . The problem isn't merely the dishonesty of trying to make a person and/or their argument sound much worse than they are. It's the degrading effect it has on the rest of a discussion. Once bystanders see that it's ok to throw c…

It's worth trying, but it probably won't work. The bitterness in this thread can't be countered with social pressure, and you can't ban people for appearing disingenuous. They believe what they're writing. These comments aren't coming from people in a mindset to observe their own actions from a distance, which is what the Principle of Charity requires.

When a commenter is convinced that a topic is very important, and that it's a moral imperative to change the minds of whoever opposes them, "zealot" is one way to describe this situation. It seems to be the underlying force behind all this bitterness.

Scrolling down in hopes of finding a reasonable comment is a recipe for disappointment. Worse, it adds fuel: Many of these comments are from people fed up with zealotry.

Ideally, the mean-spirited comments would be whisked away to the bottom of the thread, where they belong. But they're not offtopic so they can't be detached.

I've often wished for a way to view a thread without any nesting, i.e. like /newcomments but for one specific thread. That way I could at least come back later without having to scroll past the same tired meanness. It'd be a lot easier to spot the gems posted as replies.

Post reply on HN