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

The Spoon Theory (2003)

butyoudontlooksick.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 133 posts

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#61

Post by Ensorceled »

reedf1 wrote: post #16

One of the effects of society is to reduce the number of 'spoons' any person needs to 'spend' a day. This is probably a good argument against those who are anti-automation. As a more efficient automated society slowly lowers the 'minimum spoon bar' that is required for net contribution.

The arguments of those against automation are that it eliminates jobs and consolidates wealth to the owners of the automation facilities, completely eliminating the contribution of laid off workers who go on to work menial jobs else where.

How this "spoons" analogy a good argument against that?

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#62

Post by endominus »

pjc50 wrote: post #51
jackpirate wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is true. I once spent some time at an Amish community, and I saw their elderly and sick all living relatively productive lives. They were cooking, cleaning, watching children, and performing other small tasks that made everyone's life a bit nicer. The only reason these "menial" jobs were available to them was the deliberate inefficiency of the Amish lifestyle.

The key thing there is not "no automation" but co-living in the same community; the main barrier to having your retired parents look after the children while you go to work is the need of most people to move across the country to look for jobs.

But those are linked attributes. Automation encourages/requires centralization and industrial scaling, and efficient allocation of labor demands that said labor be liquid in regards to physical location, making jobs less situated. The workforce must become more mobile, flocking to the latest job locus, and therefore more settled people are left behind.

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#63

Post by 101008 »

praptak wrote: post #60
taneq wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should always be either at the edge of your traction circle or at the full limit of one of your controls. Anything less is wasting time.

It's similar to server apps. They should either have empty queue or max out a resource (CPU, disk bandwidth, network bandwidth).

Sorry, is this true? Last days I spent a lot of time going crazy because our apps are consuming 90% of memory on our instances and I feel bad/scary for that.

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#64

Post by mcv »

I've heard a lot of people refer to being "out of spoons" throughout the years. It's good to finally read the origin story of that.

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#66

Post by hhjinks »

Ensorceled wrote: post #61
reedf1 wrote: post #16

One of the effects of society is to reduce the number of 'spoons' any person needs to 'spend' a day. This is probably a good argument against those who are anti-automation. As a more efficient automated society slowly lowers the 'minimum spoon bar' that is required for net contribution.

The arguments of those against automation are that it eliminates jobs and consolidates wealth to the owners of the automation facilities, completely eliminating the contribution of laid off workers who go on to work menial jobs else where. How this "spoons" analogy a good argument against that?

That's not an argument against automation, it's an argument against capitalism.

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#67

Post by alpaca128 »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #29
FrozenVoid wrote: post #17

I work by effort/benefit ratio. Many programmers start ambitious projects with very high effort and low benefit, like e.g. a browser/os/videogame/library which they maintain at expense of their health and limited time. Low effort, small-scale projects with immediate benefit/utility are much less taxing on health and don't require constant maintenance. Unix way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Do_One_Thin…

> Many programmers start ambitious projects with very high effort and low benefit I would argue that they are actually high benefit, or at least appear as such to the person. I don't think many people would willingly choose to engage in high effort/low benefit activities. > Low effort, small-scale projects with immediate benefit/utility are much less taxing on health and don't require constant maintenance They are al…

Benefit comes in multiple forms. There's the benefit you get when finishing a project, and the benefit of gathering experience on the way.

In the end that's the way we learn and improve: by pushing the boundaries into unknown territory instead of always going with the methods that have already been working. To actually be sufficiently motivated to dive into a new hard area, having a goal is important, even if it's unrealistic. And when the time comes to actually build something serious it's good to be aware of what to expect and be familiar with the tools.

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#68

Post by strken »

padolsey wrote: post #43
Puts wrote: post #27

"Most people start the day with unlimited amount of possibilities" I think the comments to this post testifies that no one has unlimited spoons. Most people struggle. Some more, some less.

TBQH I have a real dislike for the relativistic thinking that people apply to this. Everyone does struggle, yes. But the degree of struggle, for some, is exponentially more. To just participate in the smallest parts of life... eating, cleaning, emptying one's bowels, is a daily challange. What if you could only afford energy for one outing to the shop? What if taking a shower felt like running a marathon? What if mak…

The phrasing of the article specifically invites relativistic thinking by starting from a premise that's obviously untrue for some, or even most, readers without long-term medical conditions.

In fact, when I first read it, it half-convinced me that I was sick too. Where were those unlimited spoons when I overslept, decided not to shower, put on a pair of dirty socks and sprayed them with deodorant because there were no clean ones left, got to the office an hour late, failed to complete any major task all day, fell asleep on the train and missed my stop, got home an hour later than I should have, ate half a tub of icecream and some raw carrots instead of cooking dinner, and went to bed leaving two days worth of dishes in the sink and still having no clean socks?

I'm still unsure whether I'm an unusually low-spoon individual, or whether the author thinks nominally healthy people are doing better than they really are, or whether there's actually something wrong with me, or what's going on.

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#69

Post by TeMPOraL »

reedf1 wrote: post #16

One of the effects of society is to reduce the number of 'spoons' any person needs to 'spend' a day. This is probably a good argument against those who are anti-automation. As a more efficient automated society slowly lowers the 'minimum spoon bar' that is required for net contribution.

The anti-automation argument isn't that automation is bad, and grueling labor is good. The argument is that being forced to change careers can be - depending at which age it happens for a person - anything from taking away significant amounts of wealth to complete impossibility. When you change careers, you usually start at the bottom of the ladder. Past a certain point, such switch is not recoverable, and best you can hope is that your children will start a good career early and won't be themselves forced to switch careers later on.

If automation didn't involve pushing people into deep poverty, it wouldn't have as much opposition.

Re: The Spoon Theory (2003)

#70

Post by Ensorceled »

hhjinks wrote: post #66
Ensorceled wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments of those against automation are that it eliminates jobs and consolidates wealth to the owners of the automation facilities, completely eliminating the contribution of laid off workers who go on to work menial jobs else where. How this "spoons" analogy a good argument against that?

That's not an argument against automation, it's an argument against capitalism.

It's both. But it's definitely an argument I've heard used against increasing automation multiple times including in historical contexts, so I'm unsure why you are saying it is not.
Post reply on HN