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

The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

blog.belimitless.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#11

Post by slurry »

hobo_mark wrote: post #10
westiseast wrote: post #2

I though it was (1) Don't have kids, (2) Don't have kids and (3) Don't have kids. No? :)

You say this in jest, but I also don't understand how people chose to have a full-time job (even worse, a startup) AND kids (not judging anyone, I just do not understand it). There clearly aren't enough hours in a day to manage both as well as they deserve and not live a stressful life. Before you reach for that downvote button, this is what I am personally doing: - try to become financially independent (with the swe…

No, it doesn't make sense. Your comment is naive and/or jerkish. You should feel bad about yourself for posting it.

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#12

Post by gumby »

shuaib wrote: post #6
gumby wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck it, let other people worry about the extinction of humanity -- they can have the kids. The genetic differences between all of us are pretty minor anyway, so one's as good as another. Who knows who Aristotle's kids were anyway?

Even if we rule out the possibility of human race going extinct (which is quite improbable anyway?), isn't missing on a family life (wife and kids) quite a huge compromise in pursuit of some vague definition of 'productivity'?

It's only a compromise if you prefer kids to other activities. I have plenty of friends who have spouse and kids, or spouse and no kids, or are single (or other combinations for that matter). There doesn't seem to be a gross correlation between family state and happiness among them, although the research says that the childless are happier than those with 'em.

I'm changing the world by doing stuff other people aren't. Most people are spawning, so it seems unlikely that I will change the world by doing so.

Note: FWIW I do have spouse and offspring, and enjoy my family life, but I am not pretentious enough to think that those things are part of my "contribution to humanity" any more than driving my car is.

And what's with the sexist "wife and kids" bit anyway?

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#13

Post by nate_meurer »

hobo_mark wrote: post #10
westiseast wrote: post #2

I though it was (1) Don't have kids, (2) Don't have kids and (3) Don't have kids. No? :)

You say this in jest, but I also don't understand how people chose to have a full-time job (even worse, a startup) AND kids (not judging anyone, I just do not understand it). There clearly aren't enough hours in a day to manage both as well as they deserve and not live a stressful life. Before you reach for that downvote button, this is what I am personally doing: - try to become financially independent (with the swe…

Here's how I fucked up: I dicked around throughout college and years after (and high school, really), paying little attention to career, finance, direction, and organization in general. I got more serious just as my two daughters were born, which means that the years of their young childhoods have seen me distracted by goals and demands that I should have addressed years ago.

If you like your children (not everyone does), their youngest years can be absolutely fucking magical. Nothing else in my life compares, and here's the real bummer: it's short. I love the people my kids become as they grow through the stages of their young lives, but they turn into different people, and jesus christ I miss my babies.

So yes, absolutely, get your shit together while you're a young woman or a young man. Make it your goal to be able to relax in the presence of your children. You only get one shot.

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#14

Post by bloodorange »

rak wrote: post #9
shuaib wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we rule out the possibility of human race going extinct (which is quite improbable anyway?), isn't missing on a family life (wife and kids) quite a huge compromise in pursuit of some vague definition of 'productivity'?

If you don't want to marry or have kids, you're not really compromising anything. imho, it's about being honest with yourself about what you want.

Indeed. I don't even remotely fancy raising a child (or multiple). However, I understand that others find it desirable. To each his/her own.

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#15

Post by [deleted] »

slurry wrote: post #11
hobo_mark wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this in jest, but I also don't understand how people chose to have a full-time job (even worse, a startup) AND kids (not judging anyone, I just do not understand it). There clearly aren't enough hours in a day to manage both as well as they deserve and not live a stressful life. Before you reach for that downvote button, this is what I am personally doing: - try to become financially independent (with the swe…

No, it doesn't make sense. Your comment is naive and/or jerkish. You should feel bad about yourself for posting it.

[deleted]

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#16

Post by c7b0rg »

slurry wrote: post #11
hobo_mark wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this in jest, but I also don't understand how people chose to have a full-time job (even worse, a startup) AND kids (not judging anyone, I just do not understand it). There clearly aren't enough hours in a day to manage both as well as they deserve and not live a stressful life. Before you reach for that downvote button, this is what I am personally doing: - try to become financially independent (with the swe…

No, it doesn't make sense. Your comment is naive and/or jerkish. You should feel bad about yourself for posting it.

This must be facetious. If not, please explain. OP's thoughts seem rational to me.

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#17

Post by slurry »

c7b0rg wrote: post #16
slurry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't make sense. Your comment is naive and/or jerkish. You should feel bad about yourself for posting it.

This must be facetious. If not, please explain. OP's thoughts seem rational to me.

Face-rational moralizing about people's lives and especially reproductive choices is, as a general principle, nearly always jerkish.

"Only have kids once you're independently wealthy" qualifies as rational only on HN or Reddit.

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#18

Post by hobo_mark »

slurry wrote: post #17
c7b0rg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This must be facetious. If not, please explain. OP's thoughts seem rational to me.

Face-rational moralizing about people's lives and especially reproductive choices is, as a general principle, nearly always jerkish. "Only have kids once you're independently wealthy" qualifies as rational only on HN or Reddit.

How is it different from something like "I don't buy a house I can't afford"?

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#19

Post by ollysb »

c7b0rg wrote: post #16
slurry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't make sense. Your comment is naive and/or jerkish. You should feel bad about yourself for posting it.

This must be facetious. If not, please explain. OP's thoughts seem rational to me.

It's rational but as a goal it's completely out of reach for most people (probably less so for the audience here).

Re: The rule of 3 in time management & productivity.

#20

Post by slurry »

hobo_mark wrote: post #18
slurry wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Face-rational moralizing about people's lives and especially reproductive choices is, as a general principle, nearly always jerkish. "Only have kids once you're independently wealthy" qualifies as rational only on HN or Reddit.

How is it different from something like "I don't buy a house I can't afford"?

There are contexts (say, the comments section of a story on foreclosure) where "I don't buy a house I can't afford" would be a full-on raging asshole thing to say. But you went further than that:

"I also don't understand how people chose to have a full-time job...AND kids"

You clearly implied that holding any full time job and having kids was irresponsible. Because "I don't understand how [something about mores]" is a construction that American English speakers use to point out things they consider irrational, dumb or otherwise undesirable. You even anticipated that your comment would make people mad ("before you reach for the downvote button", "not judging anyone"). Because you went a good sight further than "I don't buy a house I can't afford." I think my initial judgment of "naive and/or jerkish" stands.

Post reply on HN