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

You are not your job

jry.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 443 posts

Re: You are not your job

#391

Post by isjcjsjcnjd »

shimman wrote: post #351
scottLobster wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to care for someone in any material sense requires economic resources. Even having free time is a form of wealth that not all enjoy.

Have you ever organized with your community before? No offense but you come across as a libertarian trying to monetize social relationships. It comes across as deeply human. It also declares that people have no agency, it's just a pathetic view point on humanity and our potential. To think money is the only thing that is of highest value in our incredibly short lives is a mental sickness.

> To think money is the only thing that is of highest value in our incredibly short lives is a mental sickness.

They didn’t say that? Nor was it even implied? What the hell?

All they said was that EVEN free time is a form of wealth that not all enjoy, and free time does often correlate to how well you can express your care for someone. And they are absolutely, without a single shadow of a doubt, correct.

Re: You are not your job

#392

Post by isjcjsjcnjd »

wobfan wrote: post #379
serial_dev wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some rare once-in-a-lifetime friendships, you are not disposable, and if anything were to happen to you, you would be missed. I can count those on one hand. For most casual acquaintances (that some people incorrectly label as friends), it's certainly true. On the family's side: only parents, siblings, children, maybe some aunt or grandparent. Second distant cousin you saw 3 times in life?

> I can count those on one hand. What's the problem about that? I'd rather have my family and 1-2 close friends, and literally no one else, instead of 100 close friends that will vanish as soon as I am not able to bring anything to the table anymore, which will inevitably happen for everyone.

That’s not the point. The point is that the number is small. They are not making a judgment on the value of such relationships but rather that that number is and will always be small that in the grand scheme of things it’s insignificant, it only matters in a person’s immediate sphere.

People on this thread seriously need to stop reacting so emotionally to things. Damn. Grow up people.

Re: You are not your job

#393

Post by wobfan »

isjcjsjcnjd wrote: post #389
Dibes wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they were trying to push back on the easily word in "easily produced". While, thank god, modern medicine makes birthing dramatically safer than at any time in history, it is still an incredibly taxing process on the human body and still fundamentally dangerous. It is not "easy" per-se.

C’mon now, let’s not be intentionally obtuse to try and sound smart adding “yes, but” to a perfectly solid argument. Children are easily produced, that’s a fact. The process of child bearing is not in question, but rather the availability of willing partners (hell, even unwilling, if we’re getting that dark) and how little effort it generally takes to get the conception process going. They were making a point that it…

> One needs a few minutes of your time and gets you feeling really good at the end of the process

Ah yes, and after the intercourse the child spawns, I remember. And then it just leaves and goes somewhere and starts it's own life. No pain, work, food, time or whatever involved. Just having sex and feeling good.

> years of effort, toil and sweat

Would be a shame if that would be needed to produce a human being.

Re: You are not your job

#394

Post by wobfan »

charcircuit wrote: post #388
wobfan wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if you try to force a material value on everything, you will get a material value. I would pay a shit ton to have loving and supporting friends, but this is not how it works. Because loving and supporting friends don't want money in exchange, but your true love and support. This works for "good" neighborhoods if you replace "good" with "low-crime", as people with a higher income tend to do less crimes, if we cou…

>Because loving and supporting friends don't want money in exchange, but your true love and support. The money would go to the "matchmaker" who would connect people with the right people.

> The money would go to the "matchmaker" who would connect people with the right people.

Making friends = paying a service to find friends for me?

Re: You are not your job

#395

Post by mancerayder »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #345
scottLobster wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to care for someone in any material sense requires economic resources. Even having free time is a form of wealth that not all enjoy.

"All" is a pretty high bar. I think a huge proportion of the developed world has a lot of choice and is repeatedly choosing stuff/experiences over people. Not sure how we'd find data to resolve that... People living paycheck to paycheck, or not having $400 to cover a bill is not really proof without understanding how they're spending money... As far as I can tell a lot of today's economic woes in the developed world…

Yes and we love urban areas. Urban areas like NYC, Boston, SF are extremely expensive, with one bedroom apartments renting for 5K and selling for 1M.

Not everyone wants a 1 hr long commute, and since we took away remote work we're stuffing everyone into expensive cities where people spend the remainder of their 50 percent not taken by taxes on housing (and health too in some cases)

It's a disaster.

Re: You are not your job

#396

Post by wobfan »

isjcjsjcnjd wrote: post #392
wobfan wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can count those on one hand. What's the problem about that? I'd rather have my family and 1-2 close friends, and literally no one else, instead of 100 close friends that will vanish as soon as I am not able to bring anything to the table anymore, which will inevitably happen for everyone.

That’s not the point. The point is that the number is small. They are not making a judgment on the value of such relationships but rather that that number is and will always be small that in the grand scheme of things it’s insignificant, it only matters in a person’s immediate sphere. People on this thread seriously need to stop reacting so emotionally to things. Damn. Grow up people.

The number is small in comparison to the whole humanity, yes, but this is not at all what it's about in this post. Did you read the article?

Instead, it actually is literally about each individual's immediate sphere, which, as you correctly point out, is where it matters. Having 5 true friends in a world with 100 people or in a world with 1 billion people doesn't change anything.

Re: You are not your job

#397

Post by mettamage »

isjcjsjcnjd wrote: post #390
mettamage wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... it was 2012 so makes sense. > they fall for those jerks because those jerks have other things they can offer. Ha! That reminds me that I, somewhat unknowingly, in the past have emulated the good parts of a jerk to be more attractive myself. What are the good parts of a jerk? They are: adventurous, spontaneous, in the moment, doesn't take everything too seriously, thrill seeking and confident. It made me much…

> Oh and I still was nice too. That is a judgment reserved exclusively to third parties, I’m afraid.

In part, but my intent of being nice didn't change. It stayed the same. Also some women explicitly called me kind and nice, not all of them to be fair. I definitely had some women being like "I normally don't go for nice guys but", but I was the exception :)

Re: You are not your job

#398

Post by oxag3n »

> ...the disruption happening in AI feels like existential threat. And it should be. The skill that which you exchanged for money and stability is being replaced, you are being replaced just shuffled around.

Illusory Truth Effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

The narrative is being built that AI has already won, somewhat AGI, replaced jobs. It's sneaking into blogs and articles which are not even about AI, which makes it even harder to notice.

Re: You are not your job

#399

Post by kelseyfrog »

abcde666777 wrote: post #122

Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job (our means of survival) is a luxury. If a person can't provide for themselves the rest goes out the window fast. The only way to ease the anxiety in people isn't with fluff about their 'human worth', but rather to help them envision other tangible and plausible ways in which they can provide for themselves. The cold reality, in my opinion, is that the things we…

> Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job (our means of survival) is a luxury.

Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job is the examined life. It what makes life worth living.

We should be incredibly skeptical of a social system whose default is to have individuals primary identify by the work they do. That necessarily sets people up for continuous identity foreclosure and psychic famine in a self re-enforcing feedback loop.

Frankly it's cringe to primarily identify by profession.

Re: You are not your job

#400

Post by maerF0x0 »

mancerayder wrote: post #395
maerF0x0 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"All" is a pretty high bar. I think a huge proportion of the developed world has a lot of choice and is repeatedly choosing stuff/experiences over people. Not sure how we'd find data to resolve that... People living paycheck to paycheck, or not having $400 to cover a bill is not really proof without understanding how they're spending money... As far as I can tell a lot of today's economic woes in the developed world…

Yes and we love urban areas. Urban areas like NYC, Boston, SF are extremely expensive, with one bedroom apartments renting for 5K and selling for 1M. Not everyone wants a 1 hr long commute, and since we took away remote work we're stuffing everyone into expensive cities where people spend the remainder of their 50 percent not taken by taxes on housing (and health too in some cases) It's a disaster.

Yes, NIMBY-ism has done hard things to those specific areas. At least as far as we trust chatgpt, but people are still living in more median sq ft per person today than long ago (think 50-100 yrs ago). Of course rent per person will go up if we're renting 50-100% more space than in the past.
Post reply on HN