Getting too little sleep can have serious health consequences (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/how-sleep-deprivation-decays-the-mind-and-body/282395/?single_page=true <comment><USER3> I once, involuntary, went without sleep for around 72 hours. I was at a music festival and we were either pulling through the night or I couldn't sleep because of the noise. When the time came to go home, I really felt pretty good. At that time I had been awake for around 60 hours. My body was tired and my thinking was a bit sluggish, but nothing too bad...

Until I got home and tried to sleep. By then I was feeling dead-tired, but I simply couldn't sleep. This wasn't your average "Oh I can't sleep, guess I'll do something else and try again later" case of 'insomnia'. I was _so_ extremely tired; all I wanted was to sleep. I started having hallucinations much like the early stages of a mushroom trip (minus the fun). My eyes couldn't focus, I couldn't think.

Finally I managed to fall asleep (while constantly suppressing panic attacks; something I've suffered from in the past and know how to deal with now). I had lucid dream after lucid dream during that sleep. It was very unsettling as I got the feeling (during lucid dreaming) that I wasn't getting any "real" sleep and I'd go insane.

All in all the lucid dreaming aspect was pretty cool, and in retrospect perhaps worth the unsettling experience of being awake so long. But I'll never ever want to repeat that experience.

<comment><USER4> That's a crazy story, I could never imagine myself not sleeping for 72 hours!! When I mess up my sleeping schedule pretty bad (which happened a lot back in college), I usually do sleep paralysis when falling asleep (as opposed to when waking up). And I can do it 6 or 7 times in a row, it's a nightmare. Usually though, I realize what's going on (it's happened to me so. many. times.) after the second or third 'paralysis' and sleep on my stomach, which for some reason, allows me to fall asleep without the whole paralysis thing going on. You can actually turn sleep paralysis into a lucid dream if you 'control' it properly. I usually just wake up thinking 'thank god I'm alive' though.

For those interested in sleep paralysis, wikipedia's got a pretty good page about it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis)

Sleep is truely fascinating.

<comment><USER5> Ah I get that too. I figured out why sleep paralysis happens and here's how to fix it. When you sleep on your back your pillow is compressing your brain stem at the base of your skull. Get the pillow further up on your head so as much as possible it doesn't touch your neck or the fleshy part just below the back of your skull. It'll feel a bit different (weird?) but you should be able to sleep without issue.

Tell as many people as you can after you see for yourself.

edit: As an additional tip, the way I get out of the paralysis is by trying to rock my body as if I'm building up momentum to jump or at least jerk a limb. Once I twitch a limb it feels easy enough to break everything else out. That rocking feeling is probably imaginary so I don't know how transferable the technique is to other people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia are more likely to manifest in those already susceptible to them, if they are subject to sleep deprivation. This remains one of the few known correlations in long-term effects of sleep deprivation.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-a-lack-of- slee...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-a-lack-of-sleep-cause/) [http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Sleep- and-m...](http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Sleep-and-mental- health)

</comment><comment><USER7> It seems like every person I know has problems with their sleep. My only reference is the United States. I wonder if other countries have such a high percentage of the population that has sleep problems?

I didn't read the article. I have read so many sleep studies; I have kinda given up on every having the sleep the kind of sleep I had up until about 25. I hate not getting enough sleep. To me, sleep is more important than money? I once remember thinking I would sell my soul to the devil in order to get some good, sound sleep. (God forgive me--just joking. Yea, I'm still not positive, and don't want to piss him off.)

</comment><comment><USER8> "Spending 25% more time sleeping increases your life expectancy by 25%."

Awesome.

<comment><USER9> But that extra time spent sleeping is time spent not being awake to do things. So the overall number of useful hours is the same either way?

<comment><USER10> Also if you sleep well, and live 25% longer, that 25% will be when you're old, senile, and unable to do anything useful.

Studies about sleep are often just crazy. When did people stop using their common sense? Just have as much sleep as you think works for you.

<comment><USER11> Has every old person you've ever met been old, senile, and unable to do anything useful?

My Grandma walked to the supermarket the morning of the night she passed and was totally lucid for the entirety of her years.

<comment><USER12> I'm sorry to hear that your grandmother passed. How did her startup take the loss?

<comment><USER11> Hahaha I don't usually laugh at jokes about Grandma's passing but that got a good chuckle out of me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sleep is something I've kind of battled with for some years now. I have a job with a long commute and long hours but like to still be able to come home and make dinner and watch an episode or two of some of my favorite shows but when I do I end up awake instead of tired. If I do that I get 4 - 5 hours of sleep at night but if I get the full 8+ I basically have no life but work and sleep.

Basically everyone I know always tells me "Only 4 - 5 hours? That's not healthy!". But here's the thing, I don't feel like it. I wake up fine, go about my day, and usually fall asleep when I'm tired. I don't need to chug caffeine to stay awake or take shots of some energy drink. Once I wake up I'm wide awake and alert despite getting so much less sleep then everyone tells me I'm supposed to.

<comment><USER14> Doesn't sound like you are battling with sleep then. There are some people who do get by with 4-5 hours of sleep.

Then again, there are a lot more people who think they can get by with so little sleep, but when they do start committing to 7-8 hours of sleep they realize that extra time spent watching TV or browsing the internet doesn't make them feel nearly as good as they do when they are fully rested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This reminds me of a programmer and very talented blogger who wrote a book ("And Then I Thought I Was A Fish") about his experience of staying up for many days under the influence of LSD, and who is also committed to an institution as a result of his delusions. Very interesting and entertaining read. [http://www.stilldrinking.org/the-episode- part-1](http://www.stilldrinking.org/the-episode-part-1)

<comment><USER16> He is still in the institution? If he's still crazy, how did he write the book? Or did he half-coherently narrate it to someone who then posted it for him?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Funny how not sleeping is still considered a badge of honor -- a demonstration of strength. As a new parent, I've let go and will happily go to sleep at 8PM if the opportunity arises.

</comment><comment><USER18> Freakonomics just did a 2 part podcast on sleep.

Part 1: [http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/06/the-economics-of-sleep- pa...](http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/06/the-economics-of-sleep-part-1-a-new- freakonomics-radio-episode/) Part 2: [http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/16/the- economics-of-sleep-pa...](http://freakonomics.com/2015/07/16/the-economics-of- sleep-part-2-a-new-freakonomics-radio-episode/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Is it really such a mystery anymore?

Routine maintenance is prudent for any system. Sleep is a maintenance mode.

At night, the sun goes down, it gets cold, predators come out. You save a ton of energy and maybe your life by avoiding activity at that time. When its cold you burn extra calories just to stay warm.

Haven't biologists got a lot of evidence by now?

<comment><USER20> It's more about why/what _exactly_ ? What is taking place during maintenance ?

<comment><USER21> We don't fully know, and I'm not a neurologist. But it appears that sleep is when memories of the day get consolidated. There's also some garbage collection that runs, for the well-being of the system.

<comment><USER22> There's also, possibly, the flushing out of toxins in the brain:

[http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm](http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've found CBTI for Insomnia[0], an asynchronous 'course', to be helpful in improving my sleep. Of note, some elements of the program – particularly the metrics/habits that are most important to improving sleep – were not factors I had previously focused on or considered really.

I'm 3 weeks into the program and this is the first time I've been even remotely successful at improving my sleep.

I sound like an advertisement.

[0] [http://www.cbtforinsomnia.com/](http://www.cbtforinsomnia.com/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I've had the opportunity to sleep in a lot lately, and I've found that I feel physically and mentally the most rejuvenated around the 9 hour mark. Shorter than that and my thinking is on the sluggish side, and longer and I feel tired and unmotivated. Personally, I've found the time that I wake up to also be a factor. Waking up at 7 or 8 in the morning after 9 hours of sleep has me in a better mood than at 10 or 11 with the same amount of sleep.

</comment><comment><USER25> The headline is, of course, tautologically true. Too much|little _anything_ can have serious consequences, because "too much" or "too little" is defined by its negative consequences. "Getting enough sleep" can't have serious health consequences, because... it's enough not to. Too little sleep is "too little" precisely _because_ it has health consequences.

</comment><comment><USER26> "Too little sleep can have serious health consequences"

"Too much sleep can have serious health consequences"

<comment><USER27> Agree with first one.

Too much sleep is usually already consequence of something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> One angle not touched on here is the link between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and sleep. There has always been evidence that AD patients sleep less than the general population, but obviously there's a chicken and egg problem here - <USER2> they sleeping less because of neuronal disruption caused by the disease, or is the disease progression catalyzed by a lack of sleep[1-3]? While I think this is still an open question, there's growing research that interaction with sleep related systems in the brain can have a major therapeutic impact on the disease itself - obviously this doesn't actually answer if it's 'sleep' or some process related to sleep, but clearly something is going on here [4].

From the press release associated with [4];

 _The new research, in mice, demonstrates that eliminating the protein – called orexin – made mice sleep for longer periods of time and strongly slowed the production of brain plaques.

"This indicates we should be looking hard at orexin as a potential target for preventing Alzheimer's disease," said senior author David M. Holtzman, MD, head of the Department of Neurology. "Blocking orexin to increase sleep in patients with sleep abnormalities, or perhaps even to improve sleep efficiency in healthy people, may be a way to reduce the risk of Alzheimer's. This is important to explore further." _ \- [5]

[1] Xie, L., Kang, H., Xu, Q., Chen, M. J., Liao, Y., Thiyagarajan, M., … Nedergaard, M. (2013). Sleep drives metabolite clearance from the adult brain. Science, 342(6156), 373–377. [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/373](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/373)

[2] Ju, Y.-E. S., McLeland, J. S., Toedebusch, C. D., Xiong, C., Fagan, A. M., Duntley, S. P., … Holtzman, D. M. (2013). Sleep quality and preclinical Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurology, 70(5), 587–593. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479184](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479184)

[3] Ju, Y.-E. S., Lucey, B. P., & Holtzman, D. M. (2013). Sleep and Alzheimer disease pathology - a bidirectional relationship. Nature Reviews. Neurology, 10(2), 115–119. [http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/v10/n2/abs/nrneurol.2...](http://www.nature.com/nrneurol/journal/v10/n2/abs/nrneurol.2013.269.html)

[4] Roh, J. H., Jiang, H., Finn, M. B., Stewart, F. R., Mahan, T. E., Cirrito, J. R., … Holtzman, D. M. (2014). Potential role of orexin and sleep modulation in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 211(13), 2487–2496. [http://jem.rupress.org/content/211/13/2487](http://jem.rupress.org/content/211/13/2487)

[5] [https://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/27721.aspx](https://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/27721.aspx)

<comment><USER29> Thanks for putting these links together. It's beginning to look like sleep is the brain's garbage collector.

<comment><USER30> That has been the standard theory of sleep for many years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> "Modalifinil" the solution to all the problemas

</comment><comment><USER32> no shit!!

</comment><comment><USER33> Oh dear</comment>


Ask HN: Database for sports betting lines and results - <AUTHOR>

Are there any databases that have where betting lines started, where they ended and the result of the match? I'm interested in doing some analysis on it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> That kind of data may be hard to find for free, at least in a nicely digestible way. At FanPulse, we pay for a feed of stats, which includes live stats as well as historic data as well. These stats providers keep their info tightly cutoff from non-paying clients. I wonder where else you could find it.

Some stats providers we know include: xmlteam and sportsdirectinc.com

</comment><comment><USER3> Best I know of is bestfightodds.com for MMA betting, they record changes in the lines from start to fight time. Not exactly open for use though, may have to contact/friendly up some.</comment>


California High Court Rules Starbucks Must Pay for Off-The-Clock Work - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-high-court-rules-starbucks-must-pay-for-off-the-clock-work-1532721371 <comment><USER2> > In the Starbucks case, Mr. Amaya said that the court found the chain "just > relied on the idea that a few minutes doesn't mean anything, and the Court > said that sort of attitude won't fly in California."

The decision's not too surprising, then. "No big deal" carries zero persuasive value: it only works as a supposed argument when the person hearing it already agrees.

While Starbucks had no problem stealing 4-10 minutes a day from the plaintiff for regularly scheduled closing tasks _as a matter of policy_ , I somehow doubt they would've scoffed and hand-waved away him clocking in every day 10 minutes before he actually arrived.

<comment><USER3> The disparity is important to point out. Companies -- many, speaking in general -- will go through contortions and "chain of command anger transmission" over _any_ overtime, and efforts to avoid same.

Likewise, efforts to keep employees below the number of clocked hours that would qualify them for benefits. (Some places, this is or used to be 30 hours / week.)

On the other side of the coin, though, many employees have to buffer their time to make sure they don't clock in a second late. (And, once you're there ahead of shift, often you will be asked or expected to "help out" with something, on an "impromptu basis". This also uses personal loyalty to effect unclocked work; your co-workers may be your friends, and how can you say no to them when they could use the help? When actually, if the place is short-handed prior to your shift start, this is a _workforce and scheduling problem_ on the part of the employer.)

And, for example, employees have to struggle between providing the expected level of customer support and patience, with lingering or last-minute customers -- which takes away from overlapping scheduled closing preparations -- while not (officially, at least) going over the mandated hours limit completing the delayed closing.

Businesses try to squeeze out every second of possible idle time, while shoving the responsibility and expense for any variations that cause overages, onto the employees.

In the "salaried" pay domain, in the U.S., many employees are required to be present 40 hours / week, even when things are slack. If they perform better and get their workload done early, they are required to stick around like an hourly employee (and may get more impromptu work assigned, as a "reward").

But, when demand is higher or a crunch hits, they are expected to stay as much longer as it takes -- for no additional pay.

The benefits of a salaried position's fixed pay rate, accumulate mostly to the employer. Any actual schedule flexibility for the employee, devolves to their manager and HR. Who may try to be "fair" (and, as I've seen, often more senior management and HR policy hamstring immediate managers in doing this) or who may play favorites -- or just try to make themselves look better with the appearance of a "dedicated", "hard-driving" staff -- that they've "obviously motivated".

In the U.S., we have a lot of overall wealth. We could make a lot of lives better, spending a bit of it on more appropriate staffing. But we don't.

And, no one will act in a way that makes them "less competitive" (e.g. "higher costs"), unless there's a common requirement -- a level playing field -- one that has effective teeth.

THAT'S what 40 hours, and laws and regulations about overages, are meant to be. Compete -- that's fine. Just, you can't -- none of you -- step over this line, where we define employee abuse as starting.

And why do we have government enforcement? (And unions, etc.) Because it's awfully hard for an individual employee to fight a business, with its much more substantial resources and influence.

(Also, there is already tremendous complaint about lawsuits and torts and... Does anyone really want more of that? Arguably, many businesses would rather have common standards defined and enforced. Less legal hassle -- and, if everyone has to abide by them, still a level playing field on which to compete.)

AND NOW, add a world economy to the mix, with vastly differing standards.

What does that do to your domestic labor marketplace? (This is a rhetorical question.)

Back to this case and the U.S. I'm glad circumstances like these are getting called out and addressed. People need to think more about these matters, not less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good. Wage theft is a crime - literally.

[http://wagetheftisacrime.com](http://wagetheftisacrime.com)

<comment><USER5> The short excerpt you can read for free says this is more about stuff like the two minutes between clocking out at closing time and locking the door on your way out. It might be wage theft in some sense but isn't the same thing as requiring hours of unpaid overtime. On the other hand, I suspect the part of the article you can't read for free is about an employer who tried to cover a substantial amount of work under this exemption and now the court has to ruin things for everybody to prevent abuses.

<comment><USER6> It might be OK if everything goes well.

My own experience closing down stores of different types, though, is that that time varies. Most of these places won't let you clock in just a tad early: One place required you be perfectly on time, many others had a 3-minute window before your scheduled time.

Now, if locking the door and leaving took a minute each time (much like employees leaving without locking up), it might not be an issue. But lots of things happen. Sometimes you have to wait for folks to use the toilet: Other times, there are issues with the alarm and you wind up having to call the alarm folks. Sometimes it just takes longer to leave: One fast food place I worked at required folks gather in one vestibule. 2 workers went to their cars, one stopping outside the door and the other stopping at the exit.

This was a security measure in case of a robbery. You were encouraged to clock out once your work was done, though, and wait around for the others and management to get finished as well. You were violating safety standards if you just left.

This was all unpaid time. Even at 5 minutes each day, it adds up. Sure, it ism't the same as requiring hours of unpaid overtime, but that's only due to severity of wage theft. It is like having a lesser punishment for stealing $5 compared to $100.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In theory, this decision makes sense. If you're having employees track the time that they work, it's weird to ask them to clock out before doing a little bit of end-of-day work.

In practice, since Starbucks pays above minimum wage, I suspect they might just lower hourly wages by 1-2% if the average worker now clocks in for 1-2% more hours.

<comment> crooked-v I would suspect that the marketing cost of lowering wages by 1% is far more than the money saved by lowering wages by 1%.

<comment><USER7> Agree, but you can probably "hide" it so that it's subtle. E.g. you give people slightly smaller raises, or don't increase initial salaries for new employees over time as quickly as you might have. I'm not making a value judgment on whether this would be okay, but I think Starbucks could do something like that without the world noticing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I manage a group of hourly workers. On occasion, one or two of them would stay a bit late to finish some work and not count it in their hours because they didn't want to clock overtime.

Another worker would sometimes leave early or come in late, but write the straight 9-6, because "the other place I worked was okay with it."

I put a stop to both immediately. The first is exploitative, the second is time theft, and neither are good for the company.

I am grateful that the state of California is strict labor laws. They are a pain in the ass as a manager, but they give me the tools I need to make sure the people who work for me aren't being exploited.

</comment><comment><USER9> What confuses me is why Starbucks would fight this fight at all... A huge part of their brand is employee support, with free online college tuition, a strong culture of internal advancement, etc. These fringe activities are very small and represent a rounding error on salary & wages for the employees concerned. This could have been remedied with a quick apology to the plaintiff and a change in policy. Why would they drag this out on appeal after appeal?

<comment><USER10> It must not be a rounding error then. Here in Korea, I see the Starbucks employees sticking around well before opening and closing times doing all sorts of preparations and cleaning. I always wondered whether it was considered part of their shift.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Non-paywall story: [https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/In-suit- against-...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/In-suit-against- Starbucks-Ca-court-says-workers-13108697.php)

</comment><comment><USER12> [http://archive.is/YkN7d](http://archive.is/YkN7d)

</comment><comment><USER13> Your frappuccino is gonna get a bit more expensive.

<comment><USER14> Your frappuccino would also be cheaper if it were made by slave labourers, chained to their workplace.

How about we pay people for work that they do?

<comment><USER15> I own a business and any expenses that come up get passed on to the customer.</comment></comment></comment>


Which imparts more entropy to a disk, Gutmann or thermite? - <AUTHOR>

This stems from a question offline. Does anyone have some data we can throw at this little Fermi problem? For example, how much energy does a disk head have to transmit to flip a bit? I nknow there are several levels, etc. Let's go with a 3.5" 500 GB SATA. Order of magnitude. <comment><USER2> I'm curious what the actual question is. Is it your headline or what you have in the description? As you probably know, the point of Gutmann isn't just to flip bits . . . it rewrites them like 35 times to reduce the magnetic remanence of the physical drive material to something too difficult for someone to measure with precision unless they've got extremely expensive tools.

If I were going Fermi on the "how much energy to flip a bit" question, I'd reason that the average desktop computer has a 400W power supply and that a hard drive would need to draw at least two orders of magnitude less power than the power supply in order to allow for a stable machine. So let's say the drive draws ~1 watt of power.

I'd assume that the SATA drive is rated for 10,000 RPM. So let's say our 1 watt drive can hit ~100 drive locations per second. Let's assume that each drive location corresponds to a bit. A watt is just Joules/sec, so it takes one Joule to flip ~10^2 bits, or ~10^-2 Joules to flip a bit. I'd probably take that down an order of magnitude because I assume that the vast majority of the energy goes into moving physical components of the disk rather than into the actual charge imparted to flip the bits. So my answer would be ~10^-3 Joules to flip a bit.

<comment><AUTHOR> cool. Yeah, I'm assuming whoever wants the drive is prepared to use electron microscopes and such to uncover the bits on the mangled wreckage. So the question isn't just a informational entropy question, but a physical entropy question. How much physical entropy does Gutmann 35 pass (or n passes) add to the disk?

Basically, somebody asked a listserv what was the best way to securely wipe a hard drive. I said Gutmann 35 pass, and others came back with ideas for thermite, shooting it, etc. I figured, compared to Gutmann, thermite (the most exothermic chemical reaction, and one that happens to use iron) would be the closest. But I got to thinking, you know, if that thermite just blasts, then you've still got fragments and Gutmann wins. If it's a smoldering sort of thing and you have plenty of oxygen, maybe thermite wins, but how much thermite would you need, and how would you have to do it?

So I guess a better question would be what's the minimum necessary chemical reaction to equal the entropy of a 35 pass Gutmann?

<comment><USER2> In practice, the best way to handle a drive that might actually need to be resistant to that level of analysis is to degauss the drive, shred it, and then melt it down in an incinerator.

You wouldn't mess around with Gutmann at all because it's just a poor man's degauss, used for situations when you don't want to risk damage to the drive. You wouldn't just detonate the drive either because, as you mentioned, individual pieces could potentially still have recoverable data.</comment></comment></comment>


Elites embrace "do what you love" mantra. But it devalues work & hurts workers - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/do_what_you_love_love_what_you_do_an_omnipresent_mantra_that_s_bad_for_work.html <comment><USER4> I'm totally OK with "do what you love," so long as it's followed by, "So long as you can afford to do so."

I often tell my children that I'm incredibly fortunate to work in a field that I love, and for which there is demand. Most people, I say, work in order to make money, which is totally reasonable and legitimate, but means that they're doing things they don't necessarily enjoy.

So yes, I'm privileged, in that people pay me to do what I love. And I think that in our age, a large number of people can be similarly privileged.

But it shouldn't be an expectation, but rather an aspiration, to be able to work in something that you love. And if you can't work in something that you love, then it's more than respectable and reasonable to do something that brings in sufficient income to feed, clothe, and house your family -- and, one can hope, gives you enough time to pursue the hobbies and interests that you do love, and about which you can be passionate.

<comment><USER5> I think it's interesting that you love what you do and also work in a high demand field. I don't think those are actually coincidental.

All the chemical engineers I know (I know a few) are pretty happy. Most find their work interesting.

All the humanities academics I know (I know very many, having been one in a former life) are more or less unhappy. Many find their day to day work uninteresting and unexciting.

Chemical engineering is a high-demand field. Not many people's dream job.

Humanities academia is a low-demand field. Many people's dream job.

I think "work in a high demand field" is better advice for any young person than "do what you love," with or without qualification. Especially if they are the sort of young person who wants to be passionate and interested in their work.

Doing the hyperspecialized Hot Field of the Day may be a bad idea, but perennials like [software] engineering, K-12 education, finance, nursing, medicine etc. are generally going to be the best use of an intelligent student's time.

Low-demand fields mean a lot of down time due to lack of funding or lack of employment. That kills passion. High-demand fields mean there's always something to do and a new problem to solve. I think that's more important for actually loving what you do.

<comment><USER6> This ignores that often the high demand is there because it is a tough job for folks to do. Not everyone can physically/mentally do any job. Even if they would love to do so. That you know successful people appears at face value to simply be survivorship bias.[1]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

<comment><USER5> Academia, nonprofit work, the arts and other low-demand "dream" jobs are also extremely demanding and not possible for everyone to do.

My argument was that being one of the (high percentage of) chemical engineers with a job is better than being one of the (low percentage of) humanities academics with a job. I'll acknowledge that survivorship bias is a potential problem.

Do you think humanities PhD washouts are generally happier than Chem E washouts?

<comment><USER6> My argument is that the "high percentage of chemical engineers" are the survivors. I knew quite a large number of chemical engineers that failed out of college. Or, amusingly enough, had to switch majors to a humanities degree. :)

So, if your point is to strive high at what you are good at, provided that what you are good at is in demand, then yeah. Kind of easy to see. If your point is to simply pick an in demand position and be good at it, that is a bit tougher.

<comment><USER5> Cut policies at chem e programs are brutal and I sympathize. However, an unsuccessful chem e student who becomes a coder, or uses his prereqs to get into nursing school or become a K-12 teacher is still following my advice. It's not about which specific field, it's about what kind of probability distribution of finding a job in a field.

<comment><USER6> But you are completely ignoring all of the kids that are just drop outs. Those that don't ever get a degree, because they got their asses handed to them in pursuit of one.

And, as I said, more amusingly, you do not count the folks that started in chemE only to switch to humanities. Just pursuing a degree in a desirable degree is by no means a guarantee that you will get a good job. Just as merely throwing a dart in the general direction of the board is no guarantee that you will hit it.

<comment><USER5> a. My bad for using chem e as an example. Switch in K-12 teachers instead and the comparison vs. humanities academics works out about the same, modulo more complaints about working conditions.

b. Humanities PhD programs _also_ have enormous dropout rates. And many dropouts also end up in bad shape. I'm ignoring them too, so in the context of the breathtakingly unscientific anecdote, it's even.

c. Besides which, survivorship bias is probably not even in the top three things that make my personal anecdote not a valid scientific experiment. It's obviously not good empirical evidence for many other reasons.

Look, the basic point is, fields that people "love" but which are very hard to get jobs in, such as academia, the arts, architecture, nonprofit human services work, journalism, modeling, video game design, etc. do not tend to actually make them happy in my personal observation and experience. Another point is that I think people in high-demand fields tend to have more life satisfaction.

Things I did not address: getting a degree vs. getting a job/career; are the humanities terrible?; which specific high-demand career should one choose?; what happens if one can't hack chem e/nursing school?

I don't know the answers to most of those questions. Failing out of nursing school? I really don't know what to tell you. Would it have been better if you passed as a fine arts major? Possibly. But I'm more concerned about careers than about degrees here. If you graduate with a fine arts degree and go into banking you may be better off than the nursing school dropout, if you try to seriously pursue a career as a sculptor you are probably going to be worse off, unless you have family money.

I really am not offering advice on what career to choose, besides pointing to one big superclass of jobs that are probably a bad idea to pursue and another big superclass that are probably a better idea.

Sorry this got stuck on chem e. I don't know any chiropractors, otherwise I would have used them.

<comment><USER6> I should have been clearer myself on some of this. I think the "do what you love" proponents are pretty much a poster child of survivor bias. Doesn't matter what you are attaining to, if you are able to get it, you are likely decently happy with yourself. If you failed at one thing and switch gears to another out of necessity, it is not that surprising that you would be less happy about it.

Consider the rock stars of academia in CS. Most are fairly happy and well off people with (or without, to their desire) families. Same for many studio artists. Not just the rock stars.

I think I get what you are saying, though. That to a large extent it is supply/demand. It is easier to attain a job if those two values are at least closer to equal than otherwise. Sports/musician/artist/professor/etc, in particular, are atrociously bad choices, just by the numbers.

I just fear that knowing which fields have a high demand is not enough to decide what field to go for. Many of them have higher demand than supply due to very valid reasons of physicality or mental difficulty. Though, I fully agree that this is a better decision attribute than "what do you love to do?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Oh boy. Anarchism on HN. Time for my flame-proof suit.

Actually, I agree with basically everything written here. The definition of "work" is "instrumentally useful activities that don't match our final desires". Trying to force your career to be a final desire, by altering your career or altering your desires, _sounds_ noble but simply can't work for the vast range of occupations that genuinely are instrumentally necessary to make the world run.

Anyone who demands that you have a life-changing passion for digging ditches, flipping burgers, or writing SQL joins is a jerk. Careerism is a subgoal stomp.

<comment><USER8> > The definition of "work" is "instrumentally useful activities that don't > match our final desires"

Could you please give the source for the "quote"?

<comment><USER7> That one's mine, actually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with the initial premise, but disagree with the class warfare premises later on in the article.

DWYL is a proverb sold by Hollywood, fiction, non-fiction, speeches, news, parents, older friends who are successful, etc.

The fundamental problem is that most work is scut work that very - _very_ \- few people enjoy. Throwing trash out. Handling DMV paperwork. Roofing houses. The list goes on. The dreams we have are far, far different: CEO, fashion model, rock star, game designer, writer, race car driver. That list goes on.

Regrettably, this is a place where supply and demand become actualized reality: when everyone (or lots of people) wants to be a rock star, the market won't support it. Worse, certain professions don't have a average high demand on good days (writer). But, what is the right choice under DWYL? Pick the thing you want to be. Then, chances of that not working are high, so then you wind up with an unwanted job. "I don't deserve this". Or, underpaid.

I saw this many times in college and high school. We - my friends and I - <USER2> had bought into the DWYL ideal. Zero of us attained it, to the best of my knowledge today. We found other things along the way that satisficed us. I still remember my old friend who has worked in a (nearly) minimum wage job at a department store for maybe ten years (I hope he has broken into management). He was going to be a rock star, so education wasn't useful. It was a waste. The conflation of DWYL and real life rarely work out.

I don't advise anyone to DWYL. I advise a grim analysis of the job prospects and likely outcomes, and determining choices based upon that. If you're willing to be paid minimum wage and have to struggle through your life and have to ask your spouse to support you and work full-time - go on - be the Creative Writing major focusing on "fine art" writing as your profession.

The author points up another aspect: Work - all honest work - has dignity. Bringing home value for value has inherent worth, whether you shovel poop at a zoo or become a director at a Fortune 100 company. Selling DWYL as an ideal removes dignity from unlovable and unwanted work.

Count the costs: sometimes selling all you have for the pearl is worth it. Inform your choices and prepare for the financial and life costs.

There's a joke - a successful musician is one who only has to be a _part-time_ barista.

<comment><USER10> Through lots of study of psychology and sociology, I've changed from believing in do-what-you-love to believing in doing anything useful for mankind (but which has some interest for you) with people that you love (i.e., role models). Psychological flourishing has so many ties to our feedback from our social capital. The do-what-you-love mantra is too self-focused to really capture our requirements for total happiness. I've witnessed many people pursue their careers surrounded by assholes, living in misery, despite working on what they really like. Girls have it right by avoiding the tech industry (which has few role models for them, even if they like the subject matter).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I agree with this article and love it but take it one step further.

I think doing 'what you love' is a failed premise for several reasons.

a>When you turn your passion into a job your passion becomes a job.

b>You only 'think' you love it. Your social circles have conditioned you to love a certain subject. An inner city kid is going to be more likely interested in the NBA and Rapping, than social media and solar power. Just like the average person from the middle east will be more interested in Islam than the average person from the South. (Stereotypes can be proven by statistics.)

c>You will change. As you get older think of all the new things you've fallen in love with. New passions. New interests. And the things you have fallen out of love with. I'm not convinced people are static enough to love 'one thing' for 40 years.

I think what people really want out of a career is freedom. Intellectual freedom, freedom to manage their time,prestige, respect, expertise, etc.

I think these are the things one should be pursuing instead of doing 'what you love'.

<comment><USER12> "You only think you love it." Feels close enough. ;)

"I'm not convinced people are static enough to love 'one thing' for 40 years." Who said anything about sticking with the same career for 40 years? As my interests have changed, I've changed my profession. My profession lags which is less than ideal but it's still worked quite well for me.

Why do you find it necessary to define what the general masses "really" want out of a career? It sounds like you know what you want and if you don't care to "DWYL" that's fine. That's you.

<comment><USER11> Once you commit years of education to a particular field and years of worktime and experience the 'momentum' of your direction in life can get pretty hard to shift.

You passion for being a veterinarian turns to 'just a job'.

<comment><USER12> I get that. I'm almost 32 and had been doing software development priors to becoming an analyst where my coding skills weren't even inquired upon during my interview.

It's been hard psychologically as I try to define my role outside of building.

So you're right it's hard but it's possible if you're a) lucky and b) committed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Oh yes. The elite that "love their physics and science" and so on. Who needs the technology that makes modern agriculture possible? What drives doctors and students through grueling training? Who builds world-spanning transportation and communication networks? If you enjoy your work, or you are damned good at it, then you must be exploiting someone?

Stratification exists. It's going to continue to exist. The "solutions" to it have historically been worse than the disease.

Can we do better? Sure. Can we make them worse than they are? This article certainly points in that direction.

I have a great job and a career that I love, and I give to charities that I think are worthwhile. I could do more, sure. But I'm not going to find work as a dishwasher [done that!] or on a farm just because other people are stuck in those jobs.

<comment><USER6> So, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Relying on the work of others is not exploitation. Embracing a philosophy that essentially erases their existence is rather brash and betrays a sense of exploitation, though.

Essentially, don't presume that if you are in the upper stratosphere that your fortune to "do what you love" is some sort of directive that has made you successful. That, if all of those "lower and presumably unhappy" people would just "follow their love" they would be successful.

Instead, be grateful for what you are able to do. While it is certainly great to continue to pitch in when and where you can, I think it is more important to acknowledge the humanity and dignity of those still doing other jobs. Especially if there are jobs that you find so terrible as dishwashing. Be incredibly thankful there is someone that will _still do it_ and do not demean them by saying if they would "only do what they love they would find success."

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article is the result of greatly over-thinking a good and ultimately innocent thing.

"Do what you love" is not the latest Agile methodology. It is not a political philosophy, or some new moral treatise claiming to be your personal salvation... nor is it an underhanded attack on Labor or the hardworking people your grandfather rubbed elbows with.

"Do what you love" is a simple, honest phrase intended only to remind you that you can, in fact, be happy while making money, if you can manage to find work doing something you love. Not everyone can, of course, but that doesn't diminish the meaning or intention of this wall-plaque motto.

This journalist needs to start taking some attivan or something.

EDIT: The fact that this journalist was paid to write this article, while obviously taking pleasure in over-thinking every possible corner, is proof that you can Do What You Love and the world won't end.

<comment><USER15> Yah, I got the same feeling too. Like, the author needs to step back and take a deep breath.

First off, I'm not an elite. Second, I don't think 'elites' (whomever they may be) are saying this so people become reality distortion-ified and just zombie off to devalue themselves making straw birdies because they love stick art the most. That's silly.

Instead, I look at some people like Elon Musk or Richard Branson or Jobs or Peter Diamandis as ones that have made their own way previously doing or currently doing what they love. For me it seems, once you clear away the FUD, that you are confident on your own self, realize you have little time on this planet, and therefore you see no value in wasting your time helping someone else pursue their dreams.

I must also add that this is not just captains of industry either. There are so many doctors, educators, and scientists around the world that I'm sure love what they do and actually do make an impact. I would encourage anyone to go on Youtube or Netflix, etc, and find a documentary about planning a mission to Mars or even launching a satellite. So many of these people think in terms of decades and it's unbelievable that they can create machines, put them into space, and collect data that expands the understanding of all humanity. Any time I watch one of these, I am just blown away by the people who do this. They are truly on another level and thinking in terms of mankind and not just 'me'. I don't see any elitism or devaluing of ones labor or mental faculties _at_ _all_..

I look back on my life and see two passions that emerged: music and programming. Luckily for me, both of these things are still highly lucrative and highly expressive. I also love astronomy, philosophy, physics, construction, cooking, and more. I could probably pick any one of these and really _love_ doing them (I actually did for construction for a while - building physical things with your hands and tools is awesome).

For me, it all comes down to being in love with life. I bet if you ask any person that's excelled in their industry (or like Branson and Musk) what they think about life, they will probably tell you it's beautiful and they love it. Perhaps it's because they're successful, but it doesn't matter. Your mind and your mindset are your greatest tools and channeling creativity and determination through a focused mind can lead to great things.

I wonder if the author loves writing? Critiques are fine, but does their story inspire anyone to do anything? Or is it just to help keep people in the same mindset of negativity and division? I've made some negative posts here on HN and I'll be the first one to say, yah, dumb. Whether it's a bad day or just getting wrapped up on others negativity, in the end it serves no purpose to actually bring about any change for good. It just joins the chorus of negativity and goes no where.

So, ultimately, I couldn't disagree more with the author. If anything I think people that do what they love (calling them elite's also just serves to simplify and brand as bad) and are successful doing it are some of the highest examples of what we could aspire to be or achieve.

<comment><USER16> Just ask Musk, or Jobs if they would do what they love (running a company) for peanuts while on welfare. They will then spin you a tail that people who own, or who bring "value" should get what they deserve.

The thing is, they will choose to work at walmart over living on the street...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sometimes I feel like "do what you love" is a kind of psychic barrier-to-entry for certain fields. People say "you really have to love this field in order to be successful at it". Which implies that just being hardworking, disciplined, and determined to improve aren't enough. You have to love practicing the craft more than food, sleep, sex, or any other hobby or recreation imaginable. You have to feel like you were born to do it and when you aren't that's all you can think about. That the idea of a perfect day is 16 hours at the task with as little time as possible left over for anything else like food or sleep.

That's what comes to my mind when people tell me "make sure you love this stuff before you try to become a professional. You wont succeed otherwise."

<comment><USER18> Isn't this just an effect of supply and demand? with so many people wanting to be actors or musicians, working for almost nothing, how can you compete in that market if you don't love it?

<comment><USER19> That's right - the article is also saying that because there are many people who love doing it - that they would be willing to be paid less than someone who doesn't want.

It's competition between workers perhaps?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Scott Adams (of "Dilbert") has been rumbling publicly about this subject for the past year or so: [http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/follow_your_passion/](http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/follow_your_passion/) and [http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121...](http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121813075903866?mobile=y)

Ricardo Semler is the CEO of Semco, a multinational manufacturing conglomerate, who has also wrestled with the concept of "passion", especially as applied to assembly-line workers. For some, the ability to grow in expertise and quality of work is what drives the passion, not the content of the work itself. For others, passion lies in the off-hours activities that their factory job makes possible.

Not hiring a great worker because he lacks passion for the job function is short-sighted. That worker may just be maximizing his pursuit of "doing what you love" outside the 9-to-5.

</comment><comment><USER21> This article seems a bit overwrought for what, in my opinion, is not a terribly dangerous idea.

I'd be more concerned with what I feel is perhaps a cousin to this - <USER3> notions about work, success and risk-taking.

Basically, the idea that glorifies people who have succeeded in facing relatively benign risks as examples for the purpose of deriding people who are unwilling to face more serious ones as being somehow unworthy.

The most recent, well-known example of this was probably Mitt Romney [0], but every time someone wonders why poor people who live in bad neighborhoods don't "just move" it's the same thing on a smaller scale.

0: [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087833/-Mitt- Romne...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087833/-Mitt-Romney-says- take-a-risk-by-starting-a-business-it-worked-for-Tagg#)

</comment><comment><USER22> Workers should always follow their passions and do what they love...on nights and weekends:

[http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre- most-p...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre-most- passionate-about-then-do,31742/)

</comment><comment><USER23> It's totally one of those "toy ideals". Just like "always do the right thing". How the hell are you suppose to know what the right choice is? Maybe DWYL could be more realistically stated as "don't do what you despise", but even then, it's questionable.

I mean, its definitely popular because it "works" in so many ways. It tells you to seek employment doing things that you at least enjoy, and also tells you that if your employed doing something you don't enjoy, you -should- find a way to make it enjoyable, and even implies that things you love will be able to sustain you. It's brilliant! And by sheer weight of repetition, it goes from something prescribed or something to challenge yourself towards (this is something that everyone has to deal with) to normative (this is something that is normal). And really, it's that switch that's most insidious.

It's one thing to suggest that we all try reach a bit further than maybe we can grasp. It's another thing to create an atmosphere where everyone thinks that everyone else is capable of grasping anything they reach, and they're the only one who quite make it.

I am in my final year of engineering school right now (final term!). My class is pretty tight, and there's a lot of "class love" statements flying around. I do not quite feel so strongly. I'm the type of person who is pretty confident in their abilities, but a little insecure in who I am. And these "class love" statements ding away at me everytime. It's a totally innocent statement, and those who are saying it (probably) totally believe and feel it, and objectively, it's probably even true. But I don't really feel it, and everytime I hear and read it, it dings away at me a bit. What did I do wrong? Why don't I feel this? They're not overtly trying to hurt me (they might not even know that), but it's happening. And this is even with the self-awareness that these types of statements are kinda silly, and kinda toy-like.

I'm going to be a lucky person (at least for the shortterm), and am going to go work in an environment where I'll enjoy (if not love) my work. I can't imagine the sheer annoyance (at the very least) bound up in people who aren't in that position.

</comment><comment><USER24> The author is perceptive in identifying the large swaths of unrecognized labor that are necessary to make creative work possible. And she makes an interesting point about how the mantra of "do what you love" can lead to career moves that have unintended consequences for the people making them, including those in academia and those pursuing internships in fields that are saturated with talent, in which they're bound to be paid very little for a long time. But she goes too far in attributing responsibility to the idea that we should be doing what we love.

She shows her sympathy for this idea at the very end:

 _If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for family and leisure time. ... And if we did that, more of us could get around to doing what it is we really love._

If her main point is that people should demand fair compensation, I agree. Her angle seems to be that people should not naively be led into submitting to unpromising, low-wage employment because of romantic notions such as "do what you love." They should not unwittingly allow themselves to become tools for other people's financial betterment. But I think she misidentifies what has led to problems she describes and in doing so has underestimated the challenge. The main culprits for all of the very-low-end jobs are as likely to be automation, globalization, and a lack of regulation of large corporations and the financial services industry. Pushing back on low wages by being conscious of how "do what you love" can be used as a tool underpay people is sound personal advice, but I do not think it will go very far to fix things at a societal level.

</comment><comment><USER25> I like Martin Luther King Jr's version of DWYL.

From "What Is Your Life's Blueprint?"

And when you discover what you will be in your life, set out to do it as if God Almighty called you at this particular moment in history to do it. don't just set out to do a good job. Set out to do such a good job that the living, the dead or the unborn couldn't do it any better

If it falls your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures, sweep streets like Beethoven composed music, sweep streets like Leontyne Price sings before the Metropolitan Opera. Sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will have to pause and say: Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well.

If you can't be a pine at the top of the hill, be a shrub in the valley. Be a bush if you can't be a tree. If you can't be a highway, just be a trail. If you can't be a sun, be a star. For it isn't by size that you win or fail. Be the best of whatever you are.

<comment><USER26> Isn't the punchline of that joke something like "because increasing some rich crook's bonus depends on your gullibility and servility"

The TLDR is something like that bumper sticker which is something like "work hard today, a bazzillion people on welfare depend on you" Where a bazzillion is whatever minimal delta the design needed to avoid paying royalties, I suppose?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> For me, DWYL has always not meant "forget about whatever else is going on in the world and do your own thing", like their example of forgoing finance & law to study Norse mythology.

I always figured it was a perhaps incomplete counter to a previous time where there was an expectation you should not enjoy what you do. Many people talk about hating their work, etc. Perhaps it goes too far in the opposite direction and implies a selfish view, but in my opinion we needed a little bit of that move in this direction. Maybe we went too far and it needs to be adapted to something else, such as "Do what you love, that also has value to society" or something.

I definitely agree with the digs against off the clock "well you should love what you do, so keep doing it for free!" stuff though.

</comment><comment><USER28> That is absolutely one of the worst articles I've ever read. It's nothing but bad metaphors, questionable analogies, confused reasoning, and unfounded assertions all muddled together into what seemingly purports to be some kind of defense of the value of low-wage, low-skill, manual-labor work.

WTF?

The author assumes that anything somebody could "love" must be something "creative" and must be intellectual work... ignoring even the possibility that some people actually do love their manual jobs. Oh sure, they might wish they made more money, or wish they had more freedom and flexibility, and that might drive them to change jobs... but that doesn't mean that some people don't enjoy farming or working in factories or what-have-you.

The author also seems to assume a society based on Plato's idea that your career is picked for you at birth, and where you aren't allowed to change. But clearly we don't live in that world. If you're working on a factory floor, and _hate_ it, then "DWYL" is an _aspiration_ \- a reason to work a little harder, volunteer for extra shifts, save more aggressively, and do whatever it takes to enable you to escape the factory floor and create the opportunity to "DWYL".

I could go on, but what's the point? This article just adds nothing useful to the world, IMO.

</comment><comment> wh-uws Do what you love... that people will pay you to do

^ I always felt like that quote was missing something

You gotta understand and research.

How many people are in that field? What are their qualifications? How do you stack against them? How many openings do they have each year? What seasons/quarters/times do they hire in? Will you be able to be the best candidate and show that in an interview at that time?

What do people who graduate with that major make? What area(s) do the top people in that field congregate? Can you afford to live there with or without at job? If you lose one what's the market like for the next? Do you even want to live there?

What's the culture of that industry? Are they straight laced corporate suits who make all their decisions on a golf course? Are they creatives? Hackers who could care less how they dress? Are you or do you want to become like these people?

If you don't pay attention to these variables and more its likely that you will end up very unhappy "doing what you love".

If you do and you find something where you can marry doing what you love with a sustainable wage... now that is when you're on your way to happiness.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm sick of people telling me I'm elite or privileged because I have a job as software engineer. Fuck you Miya Tokumitsu.

As if the journalists for rags like Slate aren't elitist bourgeoisie...

</comment><comment><USER30> > If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits > for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for > family and leisure time.

a true gem quote imho

</comment><comment><USER31> While I agree that 'Do what you love.' bears a certain danger of disregarding those who aren't fortunate enough to be able to do so - pretty much like blaming homelessness and poverty on people's laziness - I don't like the attitude this article conveys.

First, nobody in their right mind would scorn a factory worker or anybody else with a 'menial' job for not doing what they love. "You don't have to be a factory worker you can become an artist, a painter, a successful entrepreneur any time you want. You're just too lazy." Saying something like that would be completely ridiculous.

More importantly this attitude favours apathy or laziness of the mind:

"Other people are worse off than you so be happy with what you got."

"First world problem."

"People in third world countries are starving while you're complaining about your job."

"Other people hate their job, too."

Statements like these promote some kind of slave moral. You have to toil because other people's lives suck, too. In this mindset actively trying to change your life for the better means betraying those who are less fortunate than you.

Perhaps Steven Covey more properly expressed what I consider to be the true meaning of 'Do what you love.':

"Find your own voice and help others find theirs."

<comment><USER32> After reading your comment, I find it curious that this submission from Slate isn't too far behind "Your most important skill: Empathy" [1] by Chad Fowler. It seems the general gist of the attitude "You're better off than X% of the population, so be happy" is rather lacking in empathy, is it not?

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Good article, perhaps could've been extended with a more common example. For instance, a person that chooses to work in a startup instead of a wall street bank. DWYL is a very good tool that's exploited by many: small firms and corporations. I'd say you should in general find your vocation as early in your life as you can but allow yourself to sidestep sometimes for money or horizon expanding opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think that what you love is not fixed but can change anytime. Maybe you can be an employee and loving building something with your co-workers. Once you have the necessary experience and means, you can embrace your own thing and make other people loving it and benefiting from. At least tech capitalism is not like industrial capitalism where the factory worker could never set up his own business (though it happened but rarely). Now you can love being a part of a startup or a big corp and being paid well, and being able to launch your own dream as well when you feel the time has come for it. Jobs has talentuous workers like John Ive to build his dream but that doesn't mean that John Ive would eternally stay an Apple worker. When will come the time he feels he can embrace his own thing, he's free to go. And that's already true with Nest guys story. I just think what's unethical is telling all the time DWYL while you don't give your collaborators and employees the chance to live their dreams one day.

</comment><comment><USER35> This article went in depth about the author's perspective on the social implications of doing what you love based on the author's definition of DWYL. She didn't examine her definition or delve into what the expression might mean, or how the people that use it might mean it. For all her research, it doesn't seem like she asked even one person - "what does this expression mean to you?"

Doing what you love isn't about what you do, it's about the relationship you have with what you do. Whether you're working a menial job or running a company, the love is in the self awareness. The love is in knowing why you do what you do and how it affects the world around you.

Understanding why you do what you do is not a privilege reserved for the elite. Aspiring to do work that is meaningful to you, that allows you to fully explore and cultivate the things you're interested in, is what makes us human.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's odd that the article frames "doing what you love" as a "privilege." The real reason it isn't practical in many cases is that being able to do what you love in many cases puts you in highly competitive elite pursuits. These pursuits require love, talent, and lots of work, or you won't make it.

I don't find too many people ungrateful for the "privilege" of doing what they love. Mostly they feel fortunate or just tired from beating the competition.

On the other hand, the Japanese are trying very hard to robotize those home care jobs they mention. Training people for jobs that won't be there seems like a recipe for resentment and possibly revolution.

"Do what you love" may not be the correct answer. But training people to do low-end labor (that we are working to automate away) so they won't burden the tax-paying love-what-we-do-and-get-paid-well-to-do-it class seems... dishonest.

<comment><USER7> >the tax-paying love-what-we-do-and-get-paid-well-to-do-it class

There is no such class. Not everyone in a six-figure job loves it. In fact, most of them don't.

<comment><USER36> Singin' the first world problem blues.

<comment><USER7> Well yeah. And actually, I _don 't_ make six figures, so _there._ Point being, yes, doing something you actually love is a privilege. Most people work to earn a living, including most of the financially fortunate. We can try to change that fact, but we can't ignore it or wish it away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's hard to extract anything useful from an article that assume that wages are set by rhetoric, and not supply and demand.

The reason people in the "lovable-work" camp make more money, is that their skills have lower supply and higher demand. This in turn is because these jobs tend to require more intellectual and creative skills.

</comment><comment><USER38> The author starts it right: "Do what you love. Love what you do." Just to build an entire case on half-the-thought: DWYL... I've read the comments and that first part (DWYL) is practically the only thing people are discussing, but I believe it loses the bigger picture. DWYL. LWYD. - Both things make it balanced. It's not only about DWYL. When you have to do something else, you need a conscious effort and purpose to LWYD.

I've read some years back (can't remember the name of the book) written by a chinese talking about his father that was a locksmith and got a job as street sweeper. He faced it with an intent. He'd be the best street sweeper in China. He would love the streets assigned under his care. That is the LWYD. That takes commitment and guts. But when you LWYD, you also DWYL.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is bullshit. It got me so riled up I went and blogged about it: [http://calroc.blogspot.com/2014/01/love-is- power.html](http://calroc.blogspot.com/2014/01/love-is-power.html) (It is cool to post links to own stuff in a comment like this? I'm new to HN.)

tl;dr: The idea that you can and should "do what you love and love what you do" arose as a counter to the misguided idea that work is something you hate that you do just to get the money to pay your bills and keep the lights on and the pantry stocked. To confuse the basic concept with a sort of bromide for the blind egos of a privileged elite is a terrible mistake.

</comment><comment><USER40> For me, doing what I love has meant learning a difference between "I love solving only this problem in this way" vs. "I love solving problems."

Saying I only love to solve certain problems in certain ways: .. greatly limits my ability to find something that I can be and stay passionate about, become the best at, and have enough of a financial engine to generate income.

Saying I love to solve problems, and learning how to solve problems.. is much closer to a sustainable first principle of "do what you love" for me. I can solve problems in many more situations. Whether it's helping someone solve a problem they've been doing manually, or a creative architecture.

</comment><comment><USER41> Why does "do what you love" have to refer to work? I love playing music. I'm not particularly skilled at it yet, as I'm still learning how, but it's great. I don't make any money doing it, I just do it in my spare time. But when I'm doing it, I'm doing what I love. And I'm not devaluing the work of others who do it better than me or for money. I love listening to the music of others (both for pay and for free, both of which I do frequently). This article makes zero sense to me, and seems like a lot of projection of the author's idea about the subject onto people who mean something different by the phrase.

</comment><comment><USER42> The central premise of this article appears to be that aiming to do what you love diminishes the efforts of those who feel they cannot.

Another way to look at it is that it's not the striving to do what you love that is the problem, but rather the mundanity of the work being done that is the problem. No matter where you are in the workforce, when your talents go to waste that is an issue. I've little doubt we can arrange our society so that more of us can fulfil our potential, so for me the mundane work is only a factor in our current setup, not a non-negotiable burden.

<comment><USER26> "diminishes the efforts of those who feel they cannot."

More like diminishes their humanity. Humans love their jobs, so those who don't love their jobs are obviously nonhuman. So no need to pay a living wage to either people who will do it for love instead of money, or pay a living wage to "others" not as morally and ethically superior as the few elite humans who are above monetary concerns.

There's no need for moral and ethical concern over a tired cliche anyway. Its had its run. Time to flush it, and pick a new interview question to see how the applicant handles nonsense and stress.

I will say its hilarious how "you should love your job" invariably means nothing other than more work for less pay. Love never in practice means "get a hug from the receptionist day" or "Mgmt loves you right back by buying lunch today" or "improve your working environment (bigger, more private, nicer, quieter, etc) because you love it here so much". It does show up quite a bit in Dilbertian satire, when insurance costs go up you get sarcastic comments about working for love and so forth.

<comment><USER42> Rate of pay for vocational work is a separate subject. The issue here is the divide between those that can follow a vocation, and those that (for whatever reason) are not in a position to.

The reason that it's a separate issue to rate of pay is that it goes beyond money. Even if monetary incentives to work did not exist, we would still wish to spend our time in activities that were fulfilling. Removing money from the equation would free up a larger slice of the population to find that which they love to do. Expanding that slice should be the goal, not having a go at those who are already placed to do what interests them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm sure DWYL adherents are so thankful there are people who _love_ spending the day hunched over in the sun picking the strawberries and kale they're gonna use in their salad tonight.

</comment><comment><USER19> One part seemed a bit of a stretch. Steve Jobs "did what he wanted" so because he did that he was exploitative capitalist boss.

Yes he did what he loved.

Yes his company is exploitative and he was a global capitalist.

No there's no connection between thinking you are doing something you love and being a global capitalist exploiting boss.

The beginning of the article seemed to suggest to me that Doing What You Love blinds you to other people's work and life choices.

</comment><comment><USER44> > There's little doubt that "do what you love" (DWYL) is now the unofficial > work mantra for our time.

Really? I would like to see some sort of basis for that, since it doesn't seem that way at all to me. Otherwise this seems like a strawman.

(A few thousand retweets etc. is not sufficient to convince me it is "the unofficial work mantra for our time".)

</comment><comment><USER45> I believe this article was first published in this month's installment of the wonderful Jacobin Magazine ([https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/in-the-name- of-love/](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/in-the-name-of-love/)).

</comment><comment><USER46>
        There's little doubt that "do what you love" (DWYL) is now
        the unofficial work mantra for our time.

Tell you what, I'm doubtful. Let me just check the article for any type of proof and... nope, still doubtful.

</comment><comment><USER47> I do what I love, and it pays the bills. In that regard, I am tremendously lucky.

But rent is due regardless. It's great to have passions, and things you like to do - those used to be called "hobbies".

</comment><comment><USER48> The author is the snob, by calling intellectual, creative, ivory-tower sort of work "lovable" and all the rest "unlovable." News flash: Some people prefer taking care of babies to running a giant corporation. In fact, if you happen to love babies and have a real knack for it, hanging out with a baby all day and taking home a paycheck is a pretty good gig if you can get it. Similarly, many Uber drivers I talk to are thrilled with their business, which lets them support their family while being their own boss and setting their own hours, and all they have to do is drive a car around town.

I'm not saying diapers are fun (I have a newborn); obviously not every moment of every job is "lovable," and a little grit and mettle is required. I'm also not saying people who "love" their work would do it for free. Some would, but that's way too high a standard for the present conversation. We're talking about individual career choice, not abolishing money in the world.

Yes, "do what you love" is an ideal, an aspiration, but it's a lot less dehumanizing, more practical, and more empowering than whatever it replaces. (Get a college degree, get a job, follow the rules, and you'll retire rich?) If employers have to at least try to make an argument that they provide an environment conducive to personal growth and that you'll have a positive impact on the world by working there, that's great.

How insulting and invalidating is it for the author to assume "workers" must be miserable, even if the workers themselves don't know it? It's the elitist version of "those poor, miserable atheists." Or: "Those poor, miserable programmers who have jobs rather than starting a start-up. They've actually been brainwashed to think they're happy. They say they _like_ programming!" Or: "Those poor stay-at-home moms, squandering their potential at the whim of the patriarchy. They will never know the true fulfillment that comes from a high-powered career."

Be careful what assumptions you bring to the table. You might be the asshole.

<comment><USER6> You completely miss what I see as the aim of the article. There are people that want to take care of their kids, as that is what they "love." There are virtually no people that get paid to take care of their kids.

That is, society, especially one that promotes "do what you love" does not value raising your kids. And since we are discussing this in the terms of "do what you love [and you will find success]", the whole bloody point is this odd assertion that people that have not been successful are not "doing what they love" and a deconstruction of it.

To its conclusion, you seem to merely be violently agreeing with the article.

<comment><USER48> I meant taking care of _other people 's_ kids. No one pays you to sit in traffic for yourself, either, or write software for yourself, for that matter. If we lived in some fantasy society with no money, maybe people would take care of their own kids and not other people's, but that's not the question at hand. Also, it's probably false. Watching each other's kids makes a lot of sense with or without money.

<comment><USER6> The question at hand is whether "doing what you love" will "leave you satisfied." And, further, that this is "as true for your work life as it is your lovers."

Consider that society, by and large, does not put a ton of value in "sitting around taking care of other peoples kids." Nor does it put a lot of value in teaching said kids. Sure you can make enough to survive, but it is a frustrating position that is often rather thankless and not at all acknowledged.

Yet, those people should bugger off because if "they truly loved what they were doing they would be satisfied." Right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Atlas wept.

</comment><comment><USER50> you can't spoil my child

</comment><comment><USER51> the article is correct. 'do what you love' is of course neoliberal propaganda created and propagated by capital as part of its war against labor.

but we must go further and realize that capital is our enemy.

<comment><USER52> > but we must go further and realize that capital is our enemy.

Y Combinator is the enemy?</comment></comment>


Pure CSS Animated Scaling Bataman - <AUTHOR> http://static.ashmokhberi.com/batman/

<comment><USER2> I thought it was going to be Batman scaling a wall.

<comment><AUTHOR> haha, nice idea though

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Best viewed in chrome.

<comment><USER3> I suggest using this: <http://cssgrid.net/>

The CSS dynamically re-sizes the picture (dog). It also automatically converts it to mobile view (except IE).

<comment><AUTHOR> Cheers, will look into that.</comment></comment></comment>