Wikipedia rejected an entry on Strickland in May because she wasnt famous enough - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1410909/wikipedia-had-rejected-nobel-prize-winner-donna-strickland-because-she-wasnt-famous-enough/ <comment><USER2> This whole controversy wouldn't even have happened if Wikipedia wasn't controlled by Deletionists. Maybe this will be the help the Wikipedia community needs to take a step back and be a little more relaxed about inclusion.

To quote Paul Graham on the subject, Deletionists are "constrained by print- era thinking." There is no harm in allowing a large number of articles that people don't frequently read, and being quick to delete articles does have harmful side effects, as evidenced by this case.

<comment><USER3> The worst is it's inconsistently applied. Some trivial topics are covered to the point of absurdity:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_(Sesame_Street)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_\(Sesame_Street\)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_(Sesame_Street)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_\(Sesame_Street\)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_and_Ernie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_and_Ernie)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My reaction to the rejected draft [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Stric...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Donna_Strickland&oldid=842614385) is that it did _not_ make clear Strickland's notability.

I'm fairly passionate about disproportional representation of women scientists. (E.g., Leavitt, Burnell.) In the (more distant) past I've initiated or added to several WP articles about women scientists.

Sometimes editors may be too quick to 'pull the trigger' on stuff ... there are _lots_ of 'unnotable personages' attempts. IMO, in this case (haven't scrutinized it closely) it looks like they tried to be fair in encouraging more 'proof', according to the established standards.

Side note: WP is, if anything, overly protective of orthodox scientific viewpoints. Maybe that colored the thinking here, who knows. But it's _up to the submitting editor to make notability clear._

</comment><comment><USER5> The notability lawyers on Wikipedia are pernicious. Especially when you consider how much in depth coverage there is of random fictional series.

</comment><comment><USER6> Note that there were articles for the men.

<comment><USER7> For what it's worth, Arthur Ashkin began working in optics in the 1960s and is considered the father of the field of optical tweezers[1]. Considering he's the creator of an entire branch of optical sciences, I feel it warrants a wikipedia article.

Gérard Mourou, while significantly less famous than Ashkin, has still been the recipient of many awards in the field of optics prior to his Nobel win[2], had previous discoveries to his name, and was the head of some labs and organizations.

Prior to the Nobel award, Donna Strickland was an associate professor. The three were definitely not equal when it came to notability.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Mouro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Mourou&oldid=751130728)

<comment><USER8> > Prior to the Nobel award, Donna Strickland was an associate professor.

So obviously the thing about her being an associate professor says more about her contributions than getting a Nobel Prize.

If you're going to try to explain away a Nobel Prize, you need to look for a new hobby. But I guess fundamentalist beliefs are resistant to evidence...

<comment><USER9> don't you see? her work was of little to no value, worthy of no less than total obscurity, for many, many years, and then one day, spontaneously, became worthy of mention in the esteemed... wikis... of Wikipedia-- the day she was awarded a Nobel Prize _completely_ out of the blue, apropos of nothing.

story checks out; nothing to see here! :^)

edit re downvotes: (not to speak for parent and OP, but) i don't think the claim here is that the kibosh-putting-on of her wikipedia page was done with malicious intent, but simply that bias may have played a role in that decision. and since it was demonstrated pretty damn unambiguously to have been mistaken in this case-- the bar for Nobel Prizes is just a _teensy_ bit above the bar for having a Wikipedia page-- perhaps, as with all mistakes, it is something to learn from and bear in mind in the future. methinks he* doth protest too much?

* about as apt an application of the phrase as you're ever likely to see heh

<comment><USER10> Generally, that is what happens. A topic spontaneously becomes available for a Wikipedia article when a third-party source of sufficient notability comes into existence. This is a discontinuous process.

You say that the decision was "mistaken" as though Wikipedia and the Nobel committee pass judgements of the same nature. But the function of Wikipedia's editors is not to judge whether her scientific work constitutes an "outstanding contribution for humanity" (for which they are evidently ill- equipped), nor is it to judge whether there __exist __sources which would confer some level of notability on her. It is only to judge whether the __particular sources presented __confer some level of notability. Looking at the rejected article, the only references are to a paper she published and two biographies on the websites of organizations she belongs to. There is no evidence that "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (from "Notability (academics)").

Anyway, I don't see why an encyclopedia should presage notability in the first place. It works the other way around. Now that she has been awarded the Nobel and her impact is beyond all contention "demonstrated by independent reliable sources", she gets a Wikipedia article. That's how it's supposed to work isn't it?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Twitter, following Instagram, implements per-post reply restrictions - <AUTHOR> https://onezero.medium.com/twitter-is-testing-a-way-to-silence-reply-guys-it-might-work-too-well-6794e07d5a80 <comment><AUTHOR> 'But on Wednesday, Twitter began testing a new, powerful fix for the problem. [context is @ replies/mentions to a tweet] For each tweet you compose, you have the option to restrict who can reply. The default is "everyone;" the new options are "people you follow" and "only people you mention." The latter, as CEO Jack Dorsey put it, is essentially a "don't @ me that actually works."[1]'

[1] [https://twitter.com/jack/status/1263181108180430849?s=20](https://twitter.com/jack/status/1263181108180430849?s=20)

Context for headline:

[https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/instagram-adds-new- res...](https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/instagram-adds-new-restrict- option-to-limit-the-exposure-of-trolls-and-cy/564238/)

[https://help.instagram.com/2638385956221960](https://help.instagram.com/2638385956221960)

For those who have trouble with Medium links:

[http://archive.is/qT7TF](http://archive.is/qT7TF)

<comment> nana- Thank you for archive link</comment></comment>


The Night Watch (2013) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://coeleveld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/thenightwatch.pdf <comment><USER2> I love articles by James Mickens. His "The Slow Winter" has had profound effect on me. I used to be a guy who was obsessed with imporving the baseline clock frequency for sequential logic design/ processing. Thought that was the only way to faster computation. Add to that, I'd read Igor Markov's "Limits on Fundamental Limits to Computation" and S Llyod's "Ultimate physical limits to computation". I reflected and pondered on how to construct the Ultimate Laptop that can process 10^51 FLOPS/ second. But after reading The Slow Winter, I realized how important power management is, and how much attention it deserves. That led me to explore other domains of computer systems.</comment>


My rocky first 24 hours with the Apple watch - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/technology-musings/my-rocky-first-24hrs-with-the-%E1%B4%A1%E1%B4%80%E1%B4%9B%E1%B4%84%CA%9C-67c841702a70?section=%5Bobject%20Object%5D

<comment><USER2> That was a good read. I always love seeing a user's first impressions of a device. Even if there are ways to avoid some of the things he had to go through it really shows what a new user can go through.

I checked them out at the Apple store and wasn't impressed with v1 (seemed to require too much interaction; I think watches need to be more passive) but I'm willing to bet they're going to sell a lot of them, v1 will be hugely improved with updates and v2 will be really good.

Though if the rumors are true that Android Wear is coming to iOS I'm really curious how this market will shake out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gave up at the lede. Admitted insufferable asshole, proven in the first two sentences. Couldn't care less about his opinions of his new $350 toy.</comment>


Sphero RVR – The Go Anywhere, Do Anything Programmable Robot - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sphero/sphero-rvr-the-go-anywhere-do-anything-programmabl <comment><USER2> Happy they designed the robot with a replaceable battery! I received an Ollie as a gift back in 2014, and the battery is flat-out dead. Wish I could still fiddle with it.

I'm a bit surprised Sphero is using Kickstarter for this campaign — they're a large company now with access to plenty of cash, I assume. Pre-orders have usually been a part of their independent product launches (i.e. the products that aren't Lightning McQueen), so I could see this as an extension of that strategy with a maker/hacker/DIY aesthetic. Crowds out Kickstarter and makes it harder for the smaller operations to get discovered though.

In general (and take this with a grain of salt because I don't know robots, only familiar with Sphero's history), I think Sphero accidentally positioned themselves super well for building out products like these. They started with a robot-in-a-ball. Literally a two-wheeled robot driving like a hamster in a ball. In order to support a user-friendly driving experience with the original Sphero, they invested in the accelerometer and gyroscopic sensors and the way they provide feedback to the drive system. So even when the wheels would slip inside the ball, the robot would detect the change in heading and adjust to suit the driver's original intent. They mention briefly in the video how this RVR bot can hold its heading on bumpy terrain, and I assume that's the same platform at work. It's neat to me because this feedback mechanism sounds like the kind of thing that's hard to patch onto a robotic platform produced at scale and get it right, to the extent that folks won't bother. They kinda got that one "for free" by validating that folks will buy a ball, and it looks like it's been a solid platform for other variations on driving robots. (But again, I don't know much about robots. This could be standard practice for all I know.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Sphero as a company has done a great job making accessible bots that can be used for both fun at home and education at school. That gives me high hopes for this new bot! Expandability, swappable battery, and price point are top of the list for edu and looking promising so far. Hope we'll hear more about sensors and features in this thread!

</comment><comment><USER4> This looks super interesting. You can probably learn a lot if you pair this with a 3D printer, especially in the education industry. To be honest, I want one for myself! I'm surprised that they are willing to give Kickstarter a 20% cut when they could of done a preorder system since they are a reputable brand to begin with.</comment>


A Continuous Delivery Setup - <AUTHOR> http://arojgeorge.ghost.io/a-continuous-delivery-example/

<comment><AUTHOR> The setup done here is very impressive. Automation with Docker, RPM, Chef, TestKitchen, Tests for Chef Scripts, Go, and the works.

</comment><comment><USER2> Thanks for posting this.</comment>


Barbara Ehrenreich questions positive thinking - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/19/DD211A4O4C.DTL <comment><USER2> I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, the "smile or die" crowd at the breast cancer support groups sounds insanely creepy. Particularly the part where they've ostracized members whose cancer has metastized because they'll bring the mood of the group down.

Also putting pressure on people to feel happy will often make them feel worse. Depressed people who are shown pictures of happy people get more depressed.

On the other hand, being positive seems to have several benefits from a personal success front:

1) Optimistic people are more fun to be around and are more charismatic.

2) Often things that are worth achieving are really hard. Optimists underestimate the difficulty, and, indeed, continually believe that success is right around the corner. Hence optimists will keep cheerily (and ignorantly) marching onwards long after pessimists/realists have realised that the chance of success is low or it's too much work. This leads to a higher chance of them achieving things.

3) Overoptimism in terms of financial risk was bad societally but not individually - as mentioned in the article people who doubted the stability of derivatives were often fired. People who were optimistic and went with the herd made money all the way along and then were bailed out after the crash.

4) Optimists are less anxious which should (at least theoretically) lead to a reduction in stress hormones such as cortisol. Stress (and cortisol,etc) is remarkably good at prematurely aging you and tearing up your body. Also one would expect reduced anxiety to lead to reduced blood pressure. Given chronically high blood pressure leads to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes there should be a health benefit there too.

(Of course once you've got cancer 'thinking positive' will probably do very little as you're too far gone).

5) Optimists are less likely to commit suicide, which improves health by default.

<comment><USER3> "once you've got cancer 'thinking positive' will probably do very little as you're too far gone" ?

I'll try to speak in an even-toned way (as spouse of a nine-year breast cancer survivor):

The survival rate is well over 50% (at five years) for _many_ forms of cancer when treated with best current therapies. Most people who've _got cancer_ are NOT "too far gone." In fact, therapists who specialize in such self-healing methodologies such as biofeedback would probably identify breast cancer patients (especially when caught in early-to-mid stages) as in a _primo_ place to benefit from stress reduction, constructive visualizations of their future, and other audaciously positive thinking.

I would not expect "pressuring" anyone to think positively would be very therapeutic. However, skilled clinicians who guide patients toward their own preferred style of positivity can be god-sends. (In my/our humble experiences.)

<comment><USER4> The major flaw in your reasoning is that you've failed to identify a correlation between thinking positively and surviving cancer. Given that several large studies have also failed to show a correlation, I am forced to doubt the _therapeutic_ benefits of positive thinking for cancer.

That is not to say that there are no health benefits from optimism. For instance there is evidence that it helps with the risks from cardiovascular disease. But it is far more dubious as a treatment for cancer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=875872> for previous discussion of the same material.

</comment><comment><USER5> A lousy article: it doesn't explain what her gripe with 'positive thinking' is. They mention a 'happiness industry', without explaining what it is.

The point of positive thinking is simply that if you are able to conjure up positive thoughts, then you will, almost by definition, _feel_ better. I hope to be able to smile, thinking positive thoughts, while I'm dying.</comment>


Show HN: Can you do 100 Push Ups? - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=air.com.jhdigitalsolutions.pushupsfree

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Choose your fitness level. 2\. Put your device on the floor and start training. 3\. Count completed push-ups by touching screen with nose.

Simple :)

</comment><comment><USER2> I actually laughed out and said out loud "ha! This is so cool". Nice one

</comment><comment><USER3> Great thanks :)

My iOS app only gave me 2 weeks free so I never got to 100.

<comment><USER4> Two week free trial on an app this simple? I'm surprised there's no free version, it's just a glorified counter.</comment></comment>


I Love My MacBook But $750 is $750 - <AUTHOR> http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/09/06/i-love-my-macbook-but-750-is-750/ <comment><USER2> I'm still not sure why people are so fascinated by this. I don't know of any blog articles complaining about the porsche boxster: "but look! it's jussstt like the pontiac solstice!"

It's just the way it is. Of course "the way it is" happens to embody a significant amount of contemporary economic theory.

<comment><USER3> I agree. It's a weird phenomenon. People just don't question high performance sports cars. They seem to understand why someone would _want_ to pay a lot of money for a porche, but they don't seem to understand why people would want to pay slightly more for a mac :/

A mac isn't even in the same league though. A luxury sports car could be 10x the price of a comparable 'standard' car. Mac's are only slightly more expensive than other some cheapy laptops.

I'll just stick with my Macs though :)

edit: That 'advert' is completely bizarre.

<comment><USER4> I totally question why someone would purchase a high performance sport car. 10 to 100 times the price of an already very expensive thing for performance you can't legally use and a nicer looking design. They're nice, but they're not $200'000 nice for a marginal increase in power, ability, & a nice body panel design.

Plus you can get motorbikes that would beat any ferrari for the same price as a prius.

<comment><USER3> If you have the money, of course you're going to spend 100x the price to get the best.

Getting a performance car isn't about the top speed, or performance in itself, it's a status symbol, a big toy, something to marvel over, something to show people, etc etc etc (I don't have one BTW.... yet).

<comment><USER2> To me, sports cars are about appreciating the bleeding edge in engineering/design (I don't have one either.. haha). And I think anytime a product is priced at 100x it's functional equivalents it's about connoisseurship.

Now I'm not saying that macs are a work of art (though OSX is in many ways the cutting edge of UI design), but they also aren't 100x the cost, maybe just +50%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My wife replaced a HP Amada with a MacBook. The MacBook had some early troubles but has been stable ever since. Two years or so.

The HP lasted about a year before the power cord connector came away from the main board and had to be resoldered. This happened a couple of times before we gave up on the machine. I bet the landfills are full of these things.

The MacBook has worked out vastly cheaper than the HP over the actual ownership experience, even if the upfront cost was a bit more.

<comment><USER6> I've never owned one, but I hear that thinkpads are also reliable, and they're still significantly cheaper than Macs.

<comment><USER7> Thinkpads sell at about the same price as macs, if you choose the proper "options" to really make the choice comparable -- the base macs are a mid/upper thinkpad. I own both, I know first-hand. And both are very reliable, as far as I can tell. The macs lasted 4 years each; the thinkpad is 2 years old and kicking very well. We'll see what happens.

<comment><USER6> Maybe at some price/performance points, but in April I compared a low-end MacBook Pro with a similarlly spec'd 15" Thinkpad, and found that the Thinkpad was something like $500 cheaper. If you want a 15" screen, you have to buy a MBP, which starts around $2000.

I ended up getting the Mac, and I'm happy with it, but not sure if it was worth the extra money. I still prefer Linux after working with a Mac for a few months.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How much do you value your time?

My laptop is my primary tool. Day in day out.

Even at $75/h it pays off in 10 hours.

<comment><USER9> Have you ever bought a computer at the apple store? It takes more than an hour just for them to go through their sales pitch while they try to sell you on apple care. God forbid you know what you want, and just want to get out of there with it in hand.

The Apple products are fun to use but given the price premium the build quality is questionable, and the machine itself is rather slow.

Jer

<comment><USER10> I've been in and out of an Apple store in 10 minutes. Just go in knowing what you want. Tell the salesmen/woman clearly, right up front. If you don't want applecare, list it like a feature. _2 gig ram, dvd-burner, no applecare._ Are you sure? _Yes._ You don't even have to go wait in line at a cash register. The sales guy just checks you out.

At circuit city, I got two spiels about extended warranties. One from the sales floor guy. One from the cashier. It also took 25 minutes to "find" the computer I wanted in the back. And this was for a preconfigured toshiba from the display.

<comment><USER11> I have been in and out of the Apple store in about 2 minutes buying my last laptop.

I said give me that Macbook, and while the guy in front of me took my credit card with his wireless POS device, another guy grabbed me the laptop.

I really find the anti-Apple movement interesting. I am not sure how to explain it - but it is more about passion than substance than the pro-Apple movement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> For something you use every day, and on which you may work, $750 is really not very much at all.

Laptops are all _really_ cheap these days. When they're all cheap, you may as well get the best IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER12> Summary: "several products exist with different specifications and prices"

...

<comment><USER13> Can we please stop doing this?

These simplistic one sentence summaries can be applied to almost any piece.

Summary of the Constitution: "We are entitled to various rights, and there are a bunch of laws that help us protect them."

<comment><USER12> Summary: stop doing things I don't like.

:p

More seriously, his post states the cost and some specifications of a macbook, and a low-cost windows laptop and that people might consider price and "mac aura" before buying. He doesn't make any useful, interesting or funny observations, conclusions, assertions or explanations. That's his entire post.

Not, "here's why I think the mac is more expensive" or "what will happen to the mac as cheap windows laptops get more powerful" or "if the mac aura is the main reason for the cost then it means XYZ", or "in previous economic downturns, mac prices changed like XYZ" or "Based on this, I predict the next device from apple will be an XYZ" or "I've built a mac price predictor" or anything. Not even as simple as "The mac is $750 more _and I think that's too much_ ".

"makes you wonder." - makes him wonder what? "at first glance it seems like a great deal" - what about at second and further glances? "I know it's apples and oranges, they're different" - how about discussing the differences in detail? "saving $750 at a time of economic uncertainly could resonate with many consumers." - discuss. Explain. Reveal insight. Predict.

No, none of that. Just "two products exist with different specifications and prices".

It's a simplistic one sentence summary for a simplistic too-many-sentence blog post.

Where's the hacking? the news? the opinion? Where's the _content_?

You love your macbook? fine, make it a four word blog post. That would be better. A passionate outburst for a product so unusually, distinctively good that you can't resist being happy that it simply exists!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> He forgot to mention the Acer Extreme has an AMD Sempron Processor and the Macbook has an Intel Core 2 Duo, which probably reduces the price of the Acer by a lot.

</comment><comment><USER15> do i have to be the only one to say that i like my MBP because it looks good? jeez, i have to look at this thing sitting in my lounge every single day, as well as the hours i spend on it. seriously, i go to my friends houses and they pull out these ugly chunks of plastic - i don't care what it runs, whatever floats your boat, but why choose something ugly? begone with your specs bean counter - i yearn for style.

</comment><comment><USER16> speaking as a former windows user, macs are worth the money given the frustation it saves you and the tech support you no longer have to do for your family. (I tried using linux as a desktop but it was just too unfamiliar from windows comparatively)

I think the guy is missing the big picture

</comment><comment><USER17> Why people insist on macs is beyond me...get a kickass laptop for $1000, load up ubuntu or fedora or mint or openSUSE, and call it a day.

Oh well, install wireless drivers and graphics drivers, and THEN call it a day. Still, as far as I care, beats buying into the Mac rich-boy fandom.

News for you: LINUX ISNT THAT HARD

<comment><USER17> In self-reflection, why did I comment negatively about Mac on YC News, where everyone is an Apple fanboy...?

Oh well.</comment></comment>


How we decreased memory usage in GlassWire 1.2 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.glasswire.com/2016/03/29/how-glasswire-1-2-saves-your-memory-and-resources/ <comment><AUTHOR> If there is any interest I can write more of a detailed technical explanation in a future Blog post. Let me know if you have any questions.</comment>


Would a Work-Free World Be So Bad? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/would-a-world-without-work-be-so-bad/488711/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits&single_page=true <comment><USER2> Among the dubious claims that the author provides no back-up for I found this gem:

> Plus, in many modern-day societies, unemployment can also be downright > boring. American towns and cities aren't really built for lots of free time: > Public spaces tend to be small islands in seas of private property, and > there aren't many places without entry fees where adults can meet new people > or come up with ways to entertain one another.

Really? I feel the market for entertainment and those interested in niche activities is as rich as it has ever been.

> "Sometimes people retire from their work, and they don't know what to do," > Gray says. "They've lost the ability to create their own activities." It's a > problem that never seems to plague young children. "There are no three-year- > olds that are going to be lazy and depressed because they don't have a > structured activity," he says.

I've read the opposite from PG, who suggests that children are now unhappy and depressed because they have no purpose. Many parents are just using schools as daycare [0]

> But need it be this way? Work-free societies are more than just a thought > experiment—they've existed throughout human history. Consider hunter- > gatherers, who have no bosses, paychecks, or eight-hour workdays. Ten > thousand years ago, all humans were hunter-gatherers, and some still are.

The authors romanticizing such lifestyles are free to build a cabin in the woods. But one should understand the accompanying poverty that would accompany such a decision.

I could go on...

[0] [http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html)

<comment><USER3> Hunter-gatherer societies have absolutely nothing to do with 'building a cabin in the woods' or poverty. They represent a highly social period in human development that lasted for tens of thousands of years. It has been argued that we have never been as happy or healthy ever since.[0]

[0] [http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html](http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html)

<comment><USER4> I just don't get this argument: are people seriously claiming that the hunter- gatherer lifestyle is better for us than our modern society? In the modern world life expectancy is significantly higher, as is prenatal and neonatal care. People in the modern world are far less likely to die of infectious disease, starvation, or really any form of violent/"unnatural" (meaning not due to old age) death. And how could you measure the happiness of hunter- gatherers relative to people in the modern world?

<comment><USER5> "I just don't get this argument: are people seriously claiming that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is better for us than our modern society? In the modern world life expectancy is significantly higher, as is prenatal and neonatal care. People in the modern world are far less likely to die of infectious disease, starvation, or really any form of violent/"unnatural" (meaning not due to old age) death. And how could you measure the happiness of hunter-gatherers relative to people in the modern world?"

I don't "get" why we're arguing about it at all - we don't need to. In 2016 there exist authentic, functioning hunter gatherer societies and it is possible to witness and document them.

Here is some witness and documentation:

[http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying- meri/](http://www.vladsokhin.com/work/crying-meri/)

... perhaps scroll down to the photos of women being cut open and burned at the stake for witchcraft, or the mutilated survivors of tribal justice.

Looks like a real party.

<comment><USER6> The article was not about the hunter-gatherer life being better as a whole, it was about how what is natural to human beings is a life with a good deal of play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >20 percent of Americans who have been unemployed for at least a year report having depression

Maybe because they have this irrational belief that having no money to pay rent is bad?

<comment><USER8> That's a "duh" moment.

I think it'd be more relevant to interview retired persons in reasonably good health.

<comment><USER9> And finances. Also might be useful to track lottery winners, though i once read a book published 30 years ago that was a bit depressing on the subject.

<comment><USER10> The problem with winning lots of money is that it is disruptive and usually takes a big toll on friends and family. Which is not the case when you earn the money yourself, because that also comes with a selection process - different kinds of friends, those who themselves grew into or are making enough money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "American towns and cities aren't really built for lots of free time: Public > spaces tend to be small islands in seas of private property, and there > aren't many places without entry fees where adults can meet new people or > come up with ways to entertain one another."

Unsubstatiated bull. I've hundreds destinations near me with no entrance fees, beaches, trails, clubs, churches, libraries, parks, etc.

> The primary purpose of the educational system is to teach people to work.

And that's why the curriculum includes civics, american history, geography, literature? K-12 does not perpare students to become workers aside from providing a struture of authority and some discipline.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps you don't live in a typical town. Most small towns don't have beaches, and most have tiny parks. Trails aren't the most common either.

<comment><USER8> Most have lake, rivers, or access to an ocean. If not this, they have mountains or other natural features. If you're living in a barren wasteland, I suggest you get outta there!

Let's take a typical american city, cleveland ohio.

Plenty of trails:

[http://www.traillink.com/city/cleveland-oh- trails.aspx](http://www.traillink.com/city/cleveland-oh-trails.aspx)

Beaches:

[http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/06/the_10_bes...](http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/06/the_10_best_beaches_on_ohios_l.html#0)

Parks:

[http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/Recreation/Hiking- an...](http://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/Main/Recreation/Hiking-and- Walking-12.aspx)

<comment><USER12> What makes a typical American city? One could argue that the second largest city in Ohio is not a typical city.

<comment><USER13> You're not wrong, but then again, the typical American doesn't live in a typical city (where typical = median).

The average American city/town has a population of 20,000, yet 80% of the population lives in a metropolitan area.

([http://www.newgeography.com/content/00242-america-more- small...](http://www.newgeography.com/content/00242-america-more-small-town- we-think))

If that's counterintuive, imagine the extreme case of a country with 100 cities of 10,000 residents, and one city of 10 million residents. The median city has 10,000 residents, yet 10 out of 11 millions live in the big city.

If you are interested in the experiences of people as opposed to statistics about cities, the sort of city a typical American lives in is more interesting than a typical city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How is a "work-free world" even possible? There are _always_ problems to solve, who will solve them? Finding and applying solutions is _work_ and one or more people must do it.

Getting paid is orthogonal to the effort. Even if performed voluntarily there is still work that needs to be accomplished.

Even having fun is a hell of a lot of work in all proportion. It's no mystery, work is the implication of existence.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, somebody needs to make the video games. Otherwise, what's the point of not working?

<comment><USER16> Actually, when I don't do work for my employer, I make video games. It still is work, even though I don't get payed in money, but it is also much more fun than playing video games others have created. I even would say it is driven by the same desire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just watch Wall-E and there's the answer. :)

Jokes aside: idle hands lead to new art, science, and culture on the one hand; and trouble on the other hand. For those with a natural inclination for creative endeavors they will explore. For people who have desires to conquer, pillage and plunder they'll go around beating people up and destroying things. For the lazy people that like sitting around, they'll end up just like Wall-E predicts.

<comment><USER18> A high percentage of unemployed young men roaming the streets of your civilization is a dangerous thing.

But, if those young men aren't angry for not having a job and are entertained by things like video games all day. I don't think you'll have much trouble.

People might take a generation or two to adapt but, we will adapt.

Eventually, doing "nothing" with your life will be socially frowned upon so people will try to find interesting, unique bohemian pursuits if only to appear like an interesting and well rounded person at dinner parties.

Men will certainly do this. Without the ability to make lots of money, men will have to have something to attract women. Men have been doing this for literally thousands of generations. It's not going to change any time soon.

Also, I see a future where people will work out alot more. It's incredible how cheap and easy lifting something heavy repeatedly decreases stress, makes one more attractive to the opposite sex and makes one happy.

In a post scarcity world, I see alot of gyms and not people too fat to get out of their chair. Even without the capital markets or paying rent to spur competition, there will always be the sexual market to spur competition. In a Wall-E world, the one guy who works out would get more women. The woman who worked out would get access to the best men. If both of these groups had nothing but free time, mating market competition alone would lead to an explosion of attractive people. If one was raised not to over-eat or was constantly stressed out from work (in order to survive) then the chances of being obese would drop.

People today are fat because they sit all day, get stressed from work. Poor people are stressed because they don't have enough money. Rich people are stressed (maybe less so) because they are competing to get more money.

If you have massive unemployment from technology, you won't have the social stigma of not having a job. Or to put it another way, you can surround yourself with people who are jobless and you'll compare yourselves in other ways.

We already see this with hipsters. Millennials already are in the first generation of post-Work thinking. They already demand more from a job than just a steady paycheck (often because finding and getting one is so hard). They look for fulfillment, work/life balance and opportunities to change the world for the better.

This will only continue and deepen. Despite media that competes for attention by making more and more dire predictions and alarming rhetoric, the world is largely getting better. More diseases are being eradicated, billions are being lifted out of poverty, billions more are gaining access to the entirety of the world's information.

There are interesting problems to solve and they will be solved quickly in our lifetimes. It will be extremely pleasing to be a part of the world as we eliminate poverty and bring the global standard of living up to where the poorest of us will still be able to live a decent life.

The optimal path could usher in the greatest climb and heights humanity has ever seen. We could make a world better than people 200 years ago could have even imagined.

We could potentially make basically Heaven on Earth if we play this right.

> Edited for grammar and clarity. It's still a bit rambly

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The problem with all if these arguments is that it assumes there's no other work you'd rather be doing aside from whatever work you've been forced to contort your desires into in order to pay rent. I think there's probably a lot of socially valuable work not getting done because social value doesn't translate to economic value.

<comment><USER20> Is that a problem though? Freed from the socio-economic obligation to maximizing income from labor, (due to basic income) one is able to pursue these other types of more p-personally rewarding work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Yes, but not for the reasons we expect it to be. I think people would find other sources of self-worth and dedication too. The problem is the guys who need people to play the games of power. I don't think that a psychopath actually can exist without his daily dose of personal power and domination gestures. These guys need people to fill there little model trains that race against one another. I think if you would automate the whole factory, up to the CEOs secretary, the market value staying the same, the reward staying the same, the CEO would drop the project like a hot potato- or would start to hire people for useless work. And im okay with that- those guys are better kept from the streets.

</comment><comment><USER22> Ever read the Culture series?

Yeah, until we achieve that level of technological sophistication, where human labor isn't needed because much more intelligent AIs and robots handle everything, then we can't truly have a work-free world. Don't get me wrong, the hedonistic Culture sounds amazing, it's just so far from reality as it stands today that it's not even worth talking about as anything other than science fiction.

Star Trek would be another post-scarcity parallel to draw, and again, it's very far from our current level of progress.

<comment><USER23> > It's just so far from reality as it stands today that it's not even worth > talking about as anything other than science fiction

We need to discuss this today, because we need to determine the path we will take forward.

1) Do we impede the adoption of automation to make sure there is work for everyone?

2) Do we have to keep the increasingly large numbers of unemployed mired in poverty to incentivize people to do the remaining necessary work?

3) Do we allow people the economic freedom to choose whether to work or not and then trust that the necessary work will get done because enough people want power and status?

I personally think 1) is a bad idea and will retard our progression. However, if you believe work is necessary for happiness and we have a duty to provide happiness for everyone, then 1) seems to be the only choice. (The article's point is to make an argument agains this option)

I do think we need a balance between 2) and 3). To me the unknown is how much economic freedom can we provide before we start losing economic output. I don't think we need to have a clear answer for this right now, but we can find the balance gradually by introducing a slowly increasing basic income.

<comment><USER24> Whatever our discussions on automation lead to, I hope we can consider the fragility angle. I'm with you on #1, but it seems to me that automation encourages too much dependency on the technology because of human nature. If there was some catastrophe and the populace was deprived of technology, I fear that most would be utterly helpless and endangered.

I understand that the best person to take charge of the average individual is themselves, and ultimately one's continued survival is their responsibility. That said, life is pretty sublime for most people where I live and most of the time all needs are met - so survival ranks low on the priorities list. Perhaps the responsible thing to do would be to make it a part of a standard education to teach low-tech survival skills. Boy Scouts was the closest thing I had to this kind of training as a kid, and I still hang on to my boy scout manual if I need knowledge in an emergency.

I try to buy food and manufactured goods made at the local level wherever possible to increase the chances that essentials can be provided if my area were to ever be cutoff from outside support for a long period.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Leaving aside the existential meaning found in non-alienated creative work, if the reproductive fitness of the violent, criminal and sociopathic is not constrained, yes, it will be.

</comment><comment><USER26> People might just work on activities they like (e.g: the maker movement, open source, art).

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm going to guess that a good portion of the depressed people reportedly unemployed, would list their reason as "Broke".

Might explain why there are double the numbers of depressed people in the unemployed vs the employed. Not so much a lack of purpose, but a lack of money.

Money might not buy happiness, but its a lot easier to be happy with money than it is without it.

</comment><comment><USER28> throughout the comments, people have commented about the necessity of work as if the only jobs required for society to function are 40 hour corporate office accounting professionals and IT staff.

the entire concept vastly downplays the actual number of services people utilize and purchase. how do you automate a lawsuit? which robot knows how to install a new circuit breaker box? and even if a robot could hypothetically discover new oil fields who decides how it searches and where are these mythological solar powered oil field search bots that have close to unlimited range so nobody has to figure out what depot they're stashed in?

finally, how do I build a new computer and phone from scratch when no slave labor exists to create all the components that go into that design since apple and microsoft and samsung and sony all have to go out of business because nobody has any money to buy their devices?

I would google it, but they're out of business since ads don't work in a society without money.

the library card only goes so far. psychological thrillers to academic psychiatry, kids books to romance novels, newspaper articles going back 50 years, but somehow I don't think I'd be able to learn micro-computing circa 2016. It would be back to concepts circa 1980-1996 and the entire field would be tedious again.

yes. a work free world would be terrible. I've thought about it a lot because the better part of my life is spent figuring out how to work less. you notice over time the people who don't have a choice in automation and they get my respect because there's very little chance they're ever unemployed longer than a couple days in their lifetime.

<comment><USER18> It's not that there would be no work or that there would be no jobs or companies staffed with people.

The point is that the average median person might not be good enough to get a job. If automation makes it so that only 20% of people are employed in any traditional sense that we recognize today; that world would be drastically different than the one we have.

In that world, we have a path where we don't get rid of money but, just use taxes on large mega companies and redistibute that money as a basic income to people without a job. This keeps capitalism and the efficiencies it brings.

With basic income, you still have advertising, you still have companies and you still have consumers buying things. There is still competition to push quality up and prices down. There is still the invisible hand of the market.

It's elegant in that it achieves the goals of eliminating both poverty and forced labor to survive without eliminating the competition that makes the world so damned efficient and effective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why yes, yes it would.

<comment><USER30> Seconded. Being jobless sucks.

<comment><USER31> Would it still suck if you had lots of money?

<comment><USER30> It would probably suck less but I would still be left with the question: what the fuck do I do all day?</comment></comment></comment></comment>