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

Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

msnbc.msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

#11

Post by skip »

ryandvm wrote: post #6

Absolutely. I managed to successfully evade cell phone ownership for years and it was dramatically empowering. It also made me develop a pretty strong distaste for our cultural addiction to instant communication. In fact, it's become at least a small part of my definition of success. I am not a concierge. I do not await phone calls with the longing of a teenager on Friday night. My peace and leisure cannot be disturb…

Like any other development tool, you can leave the smartphone on your desk. No need to carry it around.

Re: Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

#13

Post by ig1 »

skip wrote: post #8
ZachPruckowski wrote: post #3

This works great if you're in a job where they can afford to not get back to someone immediately. For people in a situation where they're really playing for the breaks (which is most young people trying to get established, and especially entrepreneurs), you can't afford to take more than a few hours to get back to people.

Unless you are saving lives (a doctor) or protecting the country (in defense), or maybe a few other edge cases, the perception that you need to get back to a person in a few hours is probably more on your end than on the recipient's.

Or need to fix your production servers which have suddenly crashed and every minute of downtime is costing you money and reputation. A category many people on HN probably fall into.

Re: Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

#14

Post by dedward »

skip wrote: post #8
ZachPruckowski wrote: post #3

This works great if you're in a job where they can afford to not get back to someone immediately. For people in a situation where they're really playing for the breaks (which is most young people trying to get established, and especially entrepreneurs), you can't afford to take more than a few hours to get back to people.

Unless you are saving lives (a doctor) or protecting the country (in defense), or maybe a few other edge cases, the perception that you need to get back to a person in a few hours is probably more on your end than on the recipient's.

Bingo.... you aren't as important as your cellphone makes you feel.

I have my funky cool blackberry - but I leave it on "Phone only", and, because I rarely ever answer it, hardly anyone ever phones me. I also have no problem ignoring it if it rings and it's not a call I actually need to take - I know it'll go to voicemail. The key is not letting the phone dominate your life. It's really there so I can phone people when I need to, or so I can allow someone to reach me when I need them to - and nothing else.

Re: Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

#15

Post by patio11 »

edw519 wrote: post #4

I stopped carrying my cell phone to theaters because I kept forgetting to put in on vibrate. I stopped carrying my cell phone to business meetings because I didn't want to be distracted by the vibrating. I stopped carrying my cell phone to restaurants because I wanted the people I was with to think that no one was more important than them while we were together. I stopped carrying my cell phone to my mother's because…

There are a couple of voicemail transcription services available, or you can use Twilio. I suggest language like "For quickest response, please spell me your email address."

Re: Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

#16

Post by sprout »

ryandvm wrote: post #9
rue wrote: post #2

A common factor of these famous people who do not use a cell phone: they have at least one assistant/secretary.

Not at all. In almost all cases, it's a self-maintained illusion that the people that call you cannot wait for a few minutes or hours to hear back from you. Sure, it might be annoying to someone that they didn't get to talk to you, but rarely does it actually make a difference.

Text messaging wastes far less time, and leaves time for more interesting pursuits than trying to quickly, extemporaneously, condense the purpose of your call into the space allotted by voicemail.

Without my Droid, my conversations would consist of a lot more bookkeeping.

Re: Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

#17

Post by patio11 »

Setsuna wrote: post #12

>"In India, even the yak herders and rickshaw drivers have cell phones" It still amazes me as how much improvement the mobile phone has brought to the low income workers in third world countries!

20 percent plus in income for some occupations, such as fishing in some areas. That makes cell service probably the most effective poverty abatement program I can name.

Re: Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

#19

Post by sprout »

>The only person his habit seems to annoy is his wife. "She wants to do things on the fly. I'm of the mindset that we can avoid that just by planning. I say, 'Katy, I'll be home at 7 or 7:30,' and she says, 'Let's talk about it later.'"

I'm with his wife. Life's too short to script my time. Maybe when I'm his age I'll mellow out a bit, but until then I like texting a friend and grabbing a late-night bite to eat then doing something absurd.

Re: Not having a cell phone means that the world has to run on your time

#20

Post by prs »

For years I was conditioned to pick up the phone as soon as it rang. Growing older, I realized this to be the wrong approach. Today, most calls end up in my voicemail.

Lessons learned:

- Urgency is typically defined in terms of the calling party. In most cases, it dissolves into something that did not warrant my attention in the first place.

- Interruptions will take away from the task at hand and result in decreased personal productivity.

Post reply on HN