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

I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 252 posts

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#221

Post by VLM »

asdasf wrote: post #215
VLM wrote: post #209

If "paleo" concepts apply to food, why not thinking? Its very interesting that we've existed as thinking animals for a lot longer than "office jobs" have existed. From an evolutionary perspective, our best thinking was almost certainly done in near perfect silence or at most calm animal noises. Hmm, we're tracking that yummy large mammal and I'm hungry, whats the next move? So I hear my neighbor chipping away quietly…

>If "paleo" concepts apply to food There is no evidence that they do.

That doesn't even make sense. Other than a "god created us this way to test our faith, not evolution" or some similar argument. You'd have to elaborate.

WRT "paleo" I'm talking specifically about applying the same anatomical/digestive/biochemical analysis that works pretty well with any other animal to figure out ideal foods and such. Not "paleo" as a large scale social movement, or as a podcasting/blogging/social media trend subject, which is not as directly evolutionarily relevant.

For example, if you dissect a cow its not hard to figure out its should kick butt WRT eating raw fresh grass. Or dissect a cat and its not hard to figure out its "supposed" to eat mice and mouse size (or smaller) animals. People? Obviously mostly carnivore by design, omnivore as a suboptimal backup plan, although given our horrible ability with vitamin C and such, we're obviously better off eating "some" citrus fruit on a regular basis or other source of vitamin C. Vitamin B retention is legendarily bad too, we're supposed to eat lots of stuff promoting vit B. On the other hand take it easy with sources of vit A and D our innards handle that even worse than wheat and corn.

The analogy is we've been thinking for a long time in vaguely known environments. The evolutionarily "new" environment of offices and desk jobs has the responsibility of explaining why they need special rules different than the past. What made our ancestors successful is probably a good starting point.

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#222

Post by dllthomas »

VLM wrote: post #216
dllthomas wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure your examples of our most demanding thinking are accurate. Mightn't those historically have been social? In which case voices might very well have been part of the environment.

No, silence is vital for hunting. Also if a possible mate or friend is talking to you, its not exactly helpful to be daydreaming about growing seeds or moon phases. If you're doing hard manual labor while visualizing a simpler way to do it, you're probably breathing too hard to talk. I will give you credit that sometimes ancient humans probably had to think pretty hard while talking. Planning a hunt. Trying to organi…

I didn't mean that the hunts were social, but that hunts might not present as large a cognitive challenge as social dynamics. Otherwise, I basically agree, I think - it does seem likely that the drain on attention would outweigh whatever other benefits - I'm just saying it's not clear that we'd get an extra cognitive boost from silence just because it's silence for evolutionary reasons.

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#223

Post by staccatomeasure »

zipppy wrote: post #204
staccatomeasure wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im in Mountain View and I can tell you that at least half of the problem is shoddy construction. East Coast houses are made to keep out weather and West Coast houses are made not to hurt when they fall on you. And this issue is going to make someone a billionaire in the future. Urbanization is well under way and people are only getting noisier and more crowded. Also, another area for huge improvements is in the legal…

Wait, are you saying that the legal system would be improved if people could sue each other over loud music, talking, or babies? I could be misunderstanding. If not, that sounds insufferable.

If your landlord shows you your apartment at 2pm while everyone is at work (or only shows a model unit) and you move in and can hear every footstep your neighbor takes and your neighbors coughing in bed at night, there should be easier ways than currently exist to solve that problem.

In the future I think every apartment will come with a noise disclosure of some sort, detailing expected noise levels throughout the day. And I think people will probably be made to sign noise agreements to join buildings..etc.

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#224

Post by dllthomas »

pg wrote: post #68

It's so true. I can do routine work with noise, but not the kind that requires insight. The sad thing is that noise is yet another example of the phenomenon of "the tragedy of the commons." Which means things tend to get noisier and noisier. In fact, what has surprised me most about living in Palo Alto is how noisy it is. You'd think living in the suburbs would at least be quiet. It is on weekends. But the problem wi…

So what we need is to internalize those costs somehow.

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#225

Post by Plasmoid »

jacquesm wrote: post #143
pg wrote: post #68

It's so true. I can do routine work with noise, but not the kind that requires insight. The sad thing is that noise is yet another example of the phenomenon of "the tragedy of the commons." Which means things tend to get noisier and noisier. In fact, what has surprised me most about living in Palo Alto is how noisy it is. You'd think living in the suburbs would at least be quiet. It is on weekends. But the problem wi…

I have a little farm-house at the end of a dead end street. No traffic, nearest neighbor 100 meters and he's doesn't own a leafblower. Clear view of the fields in three directions for the next 5 miles or so, 20,000 sq ft lot. It's been up for sale for 2 years, if you're interested ;) http://www.funda.nl/koop/oudezijl/huis-4510315-oudezijl-1/fo... Ideal spot for quiet hacking and that new YC EU headquarters!

If I didn't know better, that could totally be a farmhouse in rural Saskatchewan.

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#226

Post by pasbesoin »

__--__ wrote: post #147
pasbesoin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I'd gladly take the leaf blower. Car stereo sub-woofers and straight pipe Harleys: Two things that, in my opinion, should be outright outlawed. Live on a street where they are frequent, and your life will be difficult. Live next to someone who tinkers on them incessantly, and your life will be hell. Work is another problem. I wore out my health trying to cope with the "standard environment". (Which, of…

Work is another problem. I wore out my health trying to cope with the "standard environment". (Which, of course, was spun as "collaboration". [Cough - "cost savings" - cough.]) No more. For my own sake, as well as to no longer support people who promote such environments. How's that going for you? I came to the same conclusion a few months ago, especially the "wore out my health" part. I quit my job in SV, moved back…

I was actually fairly well able to deal with the personalities and political stuff. I've always been fairly easy to get along with and able to establish good working relationships with a wide variety of people. (Even the jerks, although I've become increasingly less tolerant of such behaviour.)

It was the physical environment that did me in. I was responsible for fairly essential financial analysis of about a billion dollars in revenue, at one point, including managing the transition of/to some fairly radical and poorly planned systems conversions. Yet they couldn't find anything better for me than a cube where my kitty-/katy-corner neighbor spent a couple of hours a day on speakerphone, and the senior manager next to me spent a different hour of the afternoon chatting on the phone with his son -- a fabric wall is not effective when two people are sitting circa five feet apart.

I didn't even care what they were doing -- or, in the case of the family chats, also not doing. I just didn't want to fight the noise for my concentration.

In another position, they finally agreed to move me to an office. Which, despite better rooms being available (and turned down by my manager), they made a windowless box (fine -- well, ok, I can cope) located next to a conference room, with no sound insulation in between (not fine).

The irony in that was that about half of the team I was on at that point was located either at other offices or virtual. That aspect worked our really just fine. One of the fellows I grew to have a lot of respect for, over the course of a couple of years, I never met in person. Yet we could pick up the phone and call -- or just email or IM or whatever -- and immediately address and plan a course of action, or take action when immediately needed, with no problem. He was a seasoned developer who knew how to get stuff done.

So... Personalities and experiences differ. But, I wouldn't worry too much about the virtual part. From my perspective, it would be likely to make me more effective in doing the actual work. And I would welcome the separation from all the environmental crap. Perhaps also the ability of people to just stop by my cube or office and draw me into their political BS or social BS. There's good social. And there's wasting an hour debating the best Jim Carrey movie. I can do without the latter.

Actually, I'm dealing with a little environmental noise now, at the moment. So, I hope I remained coherent in this response.

TL;DR: Do the work, and unplug from the crap. Keep the network active, for if/when the crap nonetheless starts to exceed the work. Use virtual as a crap buffer/filter.

--

P.S. The guy I mentioned coming to respect? Well, I got to know more than a bit about his golf fetish. There is -- or can be -- quality socializing in a virtual environment. What's nice, though, is not to be forced to tune out your neighbors' two hour discussion of their weekends.

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#227

Post by pasbesoin »

anigbrowl wrote: post #99
pasbesoin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I'd gladly take the leaf blower. Car stereo sub-woofers and straight pipe Harleys: Two things that, in my opinion, should be outright outlawed. Live on a street where they are frequent, and your life will be difficult. Live next to someone who tinkers on them incessantly, and your life will be hell. Work is another problem. I wore out my health trying to cope with the "standard environment". (Which, of…

I live near both those things and can put up with the intermittent noise. Leafblowers are an invention of Satan and must be destroyed, preferably along with their owners and operators. They are the epitome of laziness.

I had neighbors who insisted upon playing their car (or truck) stereos whenever outside, which was fairly perpetually. There is nothing that blocks or masks the sound of those sub-woofers.

It was an unincorporated location, and the county sheriff couldn't be bothered.

It also turned out that the little local street was a shortcut. "Intermittent" turned out to be a... weak description of the traffic situation.

I nonetheless grew at least somewhat accustomed to the passing noise. The non-stop, however...

Oh, and those same neighbors didn't have Harleys, but they did seem to be of the opinion that every vehicle had to have glass packs or something similar. And that they had to be "tuned up", with sometimes an hour or more of engine revving, seemingly weekly.

By comparison, I can hear a leaf blower. But as a fairly constant drone, and one that does not, at low frequency, pass right through the house, I find it comparatively easy to take.

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#228

Post by ensignavenger »

VLM wrote: post #202
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you have some incredible raking skills, or do trees not lose many leaves where you're from? Here cleaning leaves under a big tree in the fall, with or without a leaf blower, takes a solid hour. 2 if you've been lazy and not done it for a week.

google for leaf sweeper. I find mine to be much quicker than either a leaf blower or a rake, and much easier to use than a rake. For those too lazy to google its a human powered street sweeper that dumps whatever it sweeps up into a perhaps 9 cubic foot cloth bucket, then you dump the bin when it gets full. For $150 you can buy one that will fall apart in a year, or for $200 you can buy one that apparently will last…

I had to upvote you, simply for your last sentence :)

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#229

Post by asdasf »

VLM wrote: post #221
asdasf wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If "paleo" concepts apply to food There is no evidence that they do.

That doesn't even make sense. Other than a "god created us this way to test our faith, not evolution" or some similar argument. You'd have to elaborate. WRT "paleo" I'm talking specifically about applying the same anatomical/digestive/biochemical analysis that works pretty well with any other animal to figure out ideal foods and such. Not "paleo" as a large scale social movement, or as a podcasting/blogging/social me…

>WRT "paleo" I'm talking specifically about applying the same anatomical/digestive/biochemical analysis that works pretty well with any other animal

That has nothing to do with paleo, so forgive me for not guessing that. Paleo specifically means the time period before recorded human history. Dissecting a cow has absolutely nothing to do with paleo anything. Paleo is commonly used as a short hand for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet which is the naturalistic fallacy applied to modern human behavior. It is not supported by evidence.

Re: I’m Thinking. Please. Be Quiet.

#230

Post by Groxx »

elnate wrote: post #139
Groxx wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Leaf blower motors are inordinately large emitters of CO, NOx, HC, and PM according to a study conducted for the ARB (5). Two-stroke engine fuel is a gasoline-oil mixture, thus especially toxic. Particles from combustion are virtually all smaller than PM2.5. According to the Lung Association, a leaf blower causes as much smog as 17 cars." Yeah, it's things like that that make me wish we could just outright ban all t…

Modern two stroke engines are a lot cleaner than the old ones.

And still massively dirtier than a four-stroke or electric (when including pollution cost of creating the electricity, storage/transfer losses, etc).

They've already been banned on many waterways due to excessive pollution. Why not elsewhere?

Post reply on HN