The scientific reason you don't like LED bulbs – and the simple way to fix them - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/the-scientific-reason-you-dont-like-led-bulbs-and-the-simple-way-to-fix-them-81639 <comment><USER3> What gets me are side-lights on cars that flicker. Cars have DC electric systems in the first place. Where did the Audi engineers find 100 Hz to run the LEDs from?

I guess there's a switch mode power supply to convert down from 12 V to something lower that the LEDs need. But AFAIK, switch mode power supplies don't switch at 100 Hz.

I'm pretty sure you could show by experiment that flickering car side-lights are distracting. For example, in a situation where you are pulling out of a T junction in the dark, you're less likely to see a motorbike when it is in the same part of your visual field as a car with flickering lights. Particularly when you are moving your head from left to right, as you do when at a T junction.

I'm not sure how to do the experiment though, since using TV screens, monitors or projectors wouldn't work.

<comment><USER4> I suspect its not the PSU, its the PWM for the dimming.

compared to actually lowering the voltage/current of a LED/light/other its far simpler and cheaper just to turn it off and on again at varying duty cycles/ frequency.

<comment><USER5> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it just the de facto way of dimming LEDs? Since as opposed to incandescent bulbs, they require certain voltage/current to be lit, if you pass them less, they simply won't emit light.

<comment><USER6> They require a certain voltage (to a first approximation). Their light output is (again, to a first approximation) directly proportional to the applied current.

PWM control is just a cheap way of reducing the current.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've had this problem and decided to test the problem away. Used a Vishay visible spectrum phototransistor and my scope. Think it was a BPV11 transistor.

Philips bulbs are 100% clean. Poundland ones are not. Cheap no brand ones from Amazon are not. The latter two have a 100Hz output.

I suspect the hatred for LED bulbs stems from the cheap ones which use the lowest cost solution to get mains voltage into a constant current which is usually a capacitive dropper and rectifier with an inadequate smoothing cap.

Really as always with these things, buy the best you can.

Also the cheaper ones seem to have a blue/white tone whereas the expensive ones have a yellow/white tone and are warmer. This helps the eyes.

<comment><USER8> Another issue is that many LEDs have peaky spectra. This makes cool white harsh and warm white dingy. This isn't limited to cheap products, as producing a fuller spectrum with LEDs is less efficient.

I'll take the efficiency hit for better light; the most common measure used, printed on the packaging of some bulbs is CRI (color rendering index). It's based on blackbody radiation, so incandescent bulbs and sunlight both have the maximum score of 100. The average unspecified LED is in the 60s and sodium vapor lamps are _negative_. 90 is good for an LED, and 97 is the highest I've heard of someone testing in an LED[0].

CRI isn't the whole story on color quality, and it's possible to have high CRI with off tints or even a peaky spectrum outside of the specific colors the CRI standard tests, though the latter doesn't happen in practice. Several newer standards for measuring color quality exist, but are unlikely to be listed on a light bulb label.

[0] [http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/1096106#comment-1096106](http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/1096106#comment-1096106)

<comment><USER9> Agreed! It took several tries to get LEDs which worked well for vanity (i.e. Mirror) lighting. I thought it was a simple matter of color temperature - <USER2> wrong!

High CRI strip LED arrays are surprisingly hard to find. The end result was worth it though - skin looks natural, and the nearest commercial version is upwards of $800 - and I'm not entirely sure they got the CRI right.

<comment><USER10> Which solution did you end up with?

<comment><USER9> I ended up with a strip from colordiode, they're available on ebay. Was described as CRI>95 3000~3200K SMD2835, 90/m. Came with a pretty decent datasheet, seemed well-characterized. Cost was ~ $10/meter. They were responsive enough to include a few samples of other color temperatures with the order when I asked nicely.

The housing used was extruded aluminum u-channel by Torchstar (U05, semicircular), very nice clean finish. Available on Amazon.

Like I mentioned, this was for vanity lighting - there's a full length mirror in the closet that's wedged on the wall between a closet door and a window. Not much room for anything else. Hung two vertical strips, ~ 4ft long, on each side of the mirror.

Light ended up soft, diffuse, and flattering - but still directional enough for good modeling. Significant other couldn't have been happier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hate it when LED light output isn't continuous or visibly flickery, especially when it's from LED lights that are on (or are visible from) moving objects -- such as LED taillights on automobiles or in-road lane lights. All the eye movement (or object movement) makes the flicker even more flagrant :(

I remember extremely flickery lane lights on the leftmost lane markers on California's infamous SR 110, on the northbound direction (towards Pasadena) in the tunnels (the ones right before the left-exit to I-5 north).

Good fluorescent bulbs will have electronic ballasts (the driving circuit) that supply current to the bulb with a higher frequency (in the low kilohertz) than the time response of the bulb's phosphor. Thus, any sort of flicker gets low-pass filtered and isn't significantly noticeable in the output light.

Even with a subpar magnetic ballast that drives the bulb with line frequency, the phosphor never gets close to fully extinguishing -- so there is flicker, but the instantaneous light output never gets less than, say, half the maximum instantaneous light output. Look on page 3 of [http://www.usailighting.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/1/e18f88d...](http://www.usailighting.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/1/e18f88d078a54622682528e496596192/misc/flickerfactsheet_doe.pdf) for some instantaneous light vs time graphs for fluorescent bulbs.

LEDs have a much higher frequency response (in the tens of megahertz, easily) -- they respond quicker and more faithfully replicate their electrical drive signal as light output. You can see on page 4 of that report how violently jagged the LED's light/time plots can get.

If the manufacturer didn't want to include adequate filter capacitors in the LED's driver because of cost/reliability concerns, well, I hope your eyes enjoy that signal because the LED, unlike the fluorescent bulb, isn't going to smooth it out.

<comment><USER12> Those LED plots are pretty crazy. Surprising how much incandescent lights vary though (10-20% according to the plots) — would have it would have been much less than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I find this a problem with my LED-backlit LG monitor. It's ridiculously (by which I mean, blindingly) bright at full brightness, but anything below and the imperceptible flicker gives me migraines. So I have the choice of impossible brightness with no flicker, or acceptable brightness with headaches.

I don't get why LED bulbs need to flicker though - the bulbs don't dim, and if they're providing steady light, they should be operating permanently. If it's a heat production problem, the bulbs need heatsinks, not PWM.

I've found a vast array of modern tech to be completely unusable for me because of this. I can stare at the CCFL-backlit screens on my workstation all day, but a few minutes of my home monitor is enough to send me straight to bed in darkness.

<comment><USER14> > I don't get why LED bulbs need to flicker though

It's _much_ cheaper/easier to blink an LED on/off for 75% of the time than to drive a constant but lower current to produce 75% of the brightness. Most products are cost optimized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> From experience there's a massive difference in the quality of light from a cheap LED bulb to an expensive one which I don't think is something that the bulk of consumers are aware of yet.

<comment><USER16> There's also a massive difference in how long they last for. The cheap ones use cheap components that fail after a year or so. The LEDs might last a decade but the cheap drivers won't.

For those in the UK, I can recommend Screwfix LEDs. They seem to be lasting for me, don't flicker and are relatively cheap at £2/bulb [http://www.screwfix.com/p/lap-gls-led-light-bulbs-white- bc-9...](http://www.screwfix.com/p/lap-gls-led-light-bulbs-white- bc-9w-5-pack/2330j)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> You can see the flicker of your light sources for yourself if you have a slow speed camera. iPhone 6s/SE/7 can record at 240FPS. Point that at your LEDs, fluorescents and incandescents. Try your computer screen as well. I did this half a year ago and can confirm. Cheap LEDs are really bad, some more expensive ones don't flicker at all. Cheap computer screens flicker as well. Whenever I find a light source that I don't like somehow but can't quite say why, I record it slowmo and usually it turns out it flickers.

</comment><comment><USER18> Most of my led lighting is dimmable, and takes noticeable time to go dark after I flip the switch to off. The ones that actually have dimmer switches installed also take noticeable time to come on when set as dim as possible. I seriously doubt that those bulbs have flicker problems.

<comment><USER19> It's quite likely that that's intentional 'soft on/off' behavior that's been engineered into the dimmer. My lights at home do this too, but I can turn it on/off. Some LED bulbs don't deal with it very well - depending on whether the driver in the bulb themselves expect leading or trailing edge dim signals (in the case where you send mains voltage to the bulb and the bulb has in internal driver; this is different when you have a full DC circuit).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Say you have an LED which can sustain 1 Watt of continuous power. If you feed it 10 Watt in fast pulses with a pulse/pause ratio of 1:9 it would still be 1 Watt on average, but the light intensity impression to the human eye would be higher.

</comment><comment><USER21> Weird, I've never had issues with LED bulbs, but I routinely have headaches from fluorescent. Maybe I've just lucked out with my specific bulbs being higher quality (Ikea, Philips Hue). I imagine color spectrum is a large part too.

<comment><USER22> Me too - constant headaches from fluorescent lights, none from LED. I buy the less efficient full-spectrum LED lights which have a phosphor. The phosphor probably filters the underlying LED flicker.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, I think my Ikea ones are phosphor, the Philips Hue are RGB though and still fine.

<comment><USER23> Anyone know what the LiFX bulbs use? We have a dozen of them and the adjustable color temp is great. I also have a box of smaller LED bulbs from Home Depot. Neither hurt my eyes and I don't (didn't, will see now that I'm paying attention) notice a difference, but I'm sure there is one.

I also wonder about e.g. The Anker desk lamps, where the bulb is built in. I have one behind my monitor with the head turned round (it's designed to do this) to throw light up the wall behind my monitor as bias lighting, and another (their clamp lamp) on my electronics desk. They're great lamps with annoying touch power buttons, but both are adjustable color temp and have built-in LEDs which never require changing.

<comment><USER21> LiFX let you set the color right? So by definition they're going to be RGB (have three colored LEDs inside). Generally, LEDs that are single color are more likely to be phosphor (blue LED inside with a phosphor that converts to yellow).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Reminds me of the effect of using an electric toothbrush, and simultaneously looking at a LED indicator of e.g. a washing machine. It is explained here: [1].

[1] [https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/32675/why- do...](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/32675/why-do-7-segment- led-displays-break-apart-when-i-brush-my-teeth)

</comment><comment><USER25> I recently got myself some LIFX smart bulbs and I don't notice any flicker or discomfort. So maybe the morale of the story is to stop buying shit bulbs?

</comment><comment><USER26> But then wouldn't our 60Hz screens have a much bigger impact on office workers than the lights above them?

<comment><USER27> On CRT screens yes, but backlight in LCD screens is LED/fluorescent driven by much higher frequencies. Though some LCD screens still flicker, but it is visible only on special patterns: [http://www.lagom.nl/lcd- test/inversion.php](http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/inversion.php)

<comment><USER28> Not necessary much higher. I've measured screen flickering in Lenovo T500 (probably one of the oldest laptops with LED backlight) with small solar cell and oscilloscope and it's 220Hz, with lowest brightness setting only 100Hz (although this brighness level is not too useful): [http://commonemitter.blogspot.com/2017/06/lenovo-t500-measur...](http://commonemitter.blogspot.com/2017/06/lenovo-t500-measuring- screen-flickering.html)</comment></comment></comment>


I gave up caffeine, my findings - <AUTHOR> http://fragile.org.uk/2010/01/i-gave-up-caffeine/

<comment><USER2> Admirable to set yourself a goal and achieve it. Maybe I'm like one of those smokers... I have 1-2 cups a day, no suger, mostly double experesos, I like the taste, it makes me more alert and I get more work done, don't think at those levels it is bad for me.... so why would I quit?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I'd never really thought about quitting before that point, it was a spur of the moment thing. Once you make the decision though, going back on it starts to feel a bit scary, 'I can give up any time I like, just not today...'. So I stuck with it.</comment></comment>


Meet Potluck, a new product from Obvious-backed Branch  - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/6c2600e7bc38 <comment><USER2> Why are you making Potluck? Doesn't Branch take all your time? Or is it going to be closed? Or do you have so much money you don't know how to spend them but making another product?

Anyway I liked Branch even if I don't use it a lot and I can bet Potluck will be a great product, but I'm really curious about the "why"!

</comment><comment><USER3> So they made reddit.</comment>


Ask HN: One word answer – React or Vue? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Pointless question. Without context there is no reason for one over the other.

<comment><USER3> It would be better to make a poll instead of an infinite stream of one word answers.

I agree that this is not a good idea. Without a technical justification for each answer this is only a popularity contest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Many of our decisions are simply yes / no and this one as well, the claim it is much more then simple word is both right and wrong, right because there are many factors to the answer, wrong because there is a single answer for everyone. So just like: Hillary or Trump. PC or Mack. NY or SF. Internet explorer or Chrome. Android or iOS. ... One word summerizes all your understanding into a single decision to carry on. Its ok to ignore because you lack the details as well.

<comment><USER4> There is _not_ a single answer for everyone; I promote both depending on needs.

Hillary or Trump is different: there can be only one president.

PC/Mac: I run both because I need both.

NY/SF: Only reason I'm not bi-coastal is money.

IE/Chrome/FF/Safari: I use them all.

Android/iOS: I use both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> React

</comment><comment><USER6> Vue.

</comment><comment><USER7> Vue.</comment>


Physicists Solve the Mystery of the Strength of Interleaved Phone Books - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/540621/physicists-solve-the-mystery-of-interleaved-phone-books/

<comment><USER2>
      Indeed, experimenters have variously tried to separate the directories with trucks and military tanks. They've even used them to lift a car off the ground.

I know Mythbusters did these experiments. Was there anybody else who did them too?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Paper on arXiv is [ [http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.03290](http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.03290) ]: "The enigma of the two interleaved phonebooks"</comment>


Nokia Tries to Reinvent Itself, Again, by Taking Over Alcatel-Lucent - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/nokia-tries-to-reinvent-itself-again-by-taking-over-alcatel-lucent/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Mobile&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body <comment><USER2> I had no idea they had sold their mapping unit.

They bought Navteq in 2007 for $8.1B and sold that to automakers in 2015 for $3.1B [1]. I guess they needed a warchest to have a chance at succeeding in their turnaround (and considering their manufacturing roots, they'd have a hard time having a non-manufacturing-centric identity I imagine), but I'm surprised they couldn't get a higher price tag from a player in the smartphone market.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/technology/german- carmaker...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/technology/german-carmakers- buy-nokia-mapping-unit-here.html)

<comment><USER3> Well, from what I heard it wasn't profitable. Amusingly enough, the navigation in my Cadillac is now maintained by a company owned by the German car makers.

<comment><USER4> That used to mean something, now it means something else. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this is a great deal - for Alcatel Lucent. Hardware networking equipment is mostly going to become commodity (with SDN). Some networking equipment will stay expensive, but that will be a smaller market. I don't see what Nokia sees in this deal...

On the other hand Nokia can still turn things around once they get back the right to use the name in phones (afaik the name was sold to MS for a limited period). If they stop inventing new OS every month (and stick to stock Android) they could be a huge player.

<comment><USER6> Is there really a market for yet another whitebox Android vendor?

<comment><USER7> No, Nokia just wants to license their brand to some other whitebox Android vendor. They've got a lot of good western brand recognition that can be valuable to one of the Chinese oems on the verge of global expansion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks like well executed deal for good reasons.

Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent have little product overlap but significant customer overlap. This deal produces value for their current and future customers.

Nokia bought Alcatel-Lucent cleanly. It was not merge or fusion. Some managers are kept, but Nokia is clearly in charge.

</comment><comment><USER9> For some reason I like the idea of Bell Labs being in the hands of Nokia (not Microkia).

<comment><USER10> That's one of the coolest parts of this deal. I hope they make the most of the incredible research at Bell Labs!

<comment><USER11> Sadly, Bell Labs really hasn't been the amazing R&D "idea factory" it was known as throughout the 20th century for at least 30 years or more. Alcatel- Lucent is many, many, many generations (and iterations) removed from the same R&D entity that developed the transistor, radar, lasers, communications satellites, wireless telephony, transatlantic cables, etc., etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maybe they should go back to making gumboots [1].

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia)

<comment><USER13> They still do, kinda [1]. The footwear business was spun off from the main company in 1990. [2]

1\. [http://nokianjalkineet.fi/](http://nokianjalkineet.fi/)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokian_Footwear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokian_Footwear)

<comment><USER12> Time to buy it back :)

<comment><USER14> With the unrest growing again in Europe, the good old "Nokia Youth Leader" product line (rubber batons for police) also has a market.

[http://www.naurulokki.com/kuvat/missa-sana-ei-auta-siella- ta...](http://www.naurulokki.com/kuvat/missa-sana-ei-auta-siella-tarvitaan) "When words are not enough, you need NOKIA rubber batons"

(a genuine advert from 1920's)

Knowing a lot of guys in Nokia, they are not too happy about the ALU deal (mostly because of the French connection and experiences) but I see the business sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why don't public companies ever just give up and cash out the stockholders?

It can't imagine what it must feel like to go to work at Blackberry every day just so you can destroy a little more value :/

<comment><USER16> I think Nokia have reinvented themselves a few times (they started out in rubber, right?). If they's opted just to pack it in they would not have become the giant they did.

In addition I'd assume the major shareholders in Nokia & BB have had sight of and a say in the plans to try turn things around. And they think that it's a better bet than simply turning off the lights and distributing whatever cash those companies have on hand.

<comment><USER14> They actually started out as a wood pulp mill (powered by rapids at a river called Nokia) in 1868. This expanded to a paper factory in 1880 and a cellulose factory in 1885 and later on a rubber factory, and then a cable factory, and the telecoms came up as a spin-off of cable manufacturing (starting with modems).

The pulp mill site looks like this today: [http://tinyurl.com/nokianvirta](http://tinyurl.com/nokianvirta)

I worked in a Nokia R&D house that was built in Espoo in 1975; it had been constructed with a 10 tons per square meter load rating in three floors so that "if this silly electronics thing doesn't take off, we can always bring in the cable machines."

The name Nokia comes from the name of the river, which in turn supposedly comes from a reference to "noki" (soot) as it is a pre-historic trading site of black skins of fur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9379582](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9379582)</comment>


Americans and Brits will never see the world the same way - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1034914/it-doesnt-matter-where-brits-keep-their-dryers-the-point-is-they-dont-work/?utm_content=bufferb553e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Ironic that the author didn't just get a decent washer-dryer. They exist, I own one, it wasn't expensive.

<comment><USER3> I can remember when our washer dryer broke (and it's in the kitchen too, it being in the kitchen still doesn't seem odd to me even after the Kirsty Allsop tweet) and a new washer dryer being delivered, and I don't think on the newer model that the dryer cycle was ever used, and because "it won't work" – even if decent washer-dryer combinations now work, I think it's pretty engrained in British people that it shouldn't be used. Completely silly, now that I think about it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who's using Lisp today? - <AUTHOR>

I know that in the past several companies like Viaweb and Reddit have used Lisp for their production services. After reading Hackers & Painters I've been motivated to deepen my Lisp knowledge, so I'm wondering, who's using Lisp in their production systems today?<p>I know HN does, but is there any other known website currently using it? <comment><USER2> You can also look for companies doing Clojure a Lisp on JVM. You can view a list here [http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Clojure+Success+Sto...](http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Clojure+Success+Stories)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here is a list of succesful companies using Allegro Common Lisp:

<http://www.franz.com/success/>

[Note: I don't know if it's up-to-date and how significant is actually common lisp in those companies codebases.]

Also as a side note, Reddit is no longer using lisp, they are using python.

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's a list of companies using Lisp in production: <http://www.pchristensen.com/blog/lisp-companies/> . pg also has a list of Lisp applications: <http://paulgraham.com/apps.html></comment>


The JVM – A Viable Platform For (Mobile) Games? - <AUTHOR> http://www.badlogicgames.com/wordpress/?p=2919

<comment><USER2> Hear hear. He has our support: <http://jmonkeyengine.org/2013/03/java-for- games/>

</comment><comment><USER3> +1</comment>


America's loneliness epidemic: A systemic risk to organizations - <AUTHOR> https://www.smartbrief.com/original/2019/05/americas-loneliness-epidemic-hidden-systemic-risk-organizations <comment><USER4> We built our cities to isolate us, it's not that strange that we're now isolated. I was born and raised in Europe, came to the US when I got married, lived in California for the most part.

My quality of life has dramatically worsened even as I make more money I've ever made. I attribute that to the lack of casual spaces for aggregation, to free time outside being limited almost exclusively to places where to sit down and eat, shopping or hiking. I don't walk to work, I don't have a neighborhood bar where I can stop after work and see my neighbors and shoot the shit, when my wife and kid left town for a weekend I was extremely lonely and I decided to garden.

When I'm old and will not be able to drive anymore, this will get even worse. This country has built one of the worst lifestyles I've experienced in my life and it's not sustainable. I know it's difficult but the sooner we all realize we have built a bad place to thrive and we tear it down, the sooner we'll be happier.

<comment><USER5> I'll agree, living in the suburbs would be soul crushing. That's why you live in a city and ditch the car commute.

<comment><USER6> Maybe it depends on the city and your age/marital status. I found living in the city (DC) extremely lonely after having kids. Mostly 20-something professionals gunning their careers. Moved out to the suburbs and now actually have neighbors to talk to, ones with kids that'll come over and have a beer while the kids run around. All the driving isn't ideal, but I kind of like tooling around the mall.

I agree some of the problems are uniquely American. Having to spend a million dollars on a house to afford to live in a decent urban school district in places like NYC or SF or DC fucks up really messes up important social networks. Even if you can afford it, you're surrounded entirely and solely by other people who can afford it.

<comment><USER7> People want to be surrounded by other people like them, consciously or subconsciously. Whether it be under the guise of physical security, security of their house's sell price, security of their kids education, all of these lead to the same place. Stratification by income/class/job security.

I don't know if there is a good way to combat this, without restricting people's rights. People will sort by quality of school district when choosing where to buy a home and live in the one best one they can afford, and that correlates super well with parents' socioeconomic class.

Reducing the income/wealth gap seems to be the only way on my opinion to overcome this phenomenon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just as modern technology has given us cheap, convenient fast food that isn't very nourishing, it's also given us cheap, easy "social" interactions that don't provide real connection.

Social media is a nice compliment to, but not a good replacement for real conversations.

"Success" often seems to correlate with cutting yourself off-- having a nice house with a big TV, a car that takes you to and from your job with minimal interaction with other people, and if people do have a few minutes of free time, they are often nose down in their phones, not taking to people around them.

Especially after you have kids, it's easier to pull up Game of Thrones on your phone than head out to meet people. Is it any wonder that many people know more about what's going on in Westeros than in their own community?

A few years ago I started paying more attention to what I eat, which has been great physically. Over the past year or so I've tried to be more intentional about relationships and conversations. As an introvert, it was weird at first, but it's been amazing. I actually look forward to calling people. (I call it my "Reconnection Challenge" and you can start by calling 2 people per day-- outside of your "have to" calls. Try it.)

<comment><USER9> Boo Hoo. This sounds too much like social ludditism and "blaming it on technology".

While, sure, a lot of shallow connections exist in social media, _it 's the same in "the real world" as well_

Societies change, connections change.

People are using social networks as a stepping stone to deeper connections. It's that simple. As in the past the main "social networks" were school, church, hobbies, etc.

Which I think it's even better as I don't need to pretend to worship a deity or do some hobby that's out of my comfort zone.

And calling people sounds ever more like this weird technological stepping stone that's inferior to in person conversations and to texting/social network interactions

<comment><USER10> Why is there a loneliness epidemic if everything is equal and social media is just as good as real connections ?

> Societies change, connections change.

Change doesn't mean change for the best. Asking questions is totally reasonable when you look at the changes happening in the last decade. How come people, teenagers especially, are feeling more lonely while they're infinitely more connected than 20 years ago ? Why is suicide becoming the leading cause of teenagers' death ? &c.

Looks like a lot of people think change = progress = good, without even questioning it.

> I don't need to pretend to worship a deity

The irony is that technology is becoming a deity. "Don't question tech", "Tech is good, always good", "We must thrive for technological advancement at all cost", "Technical advancement is always progress", &c.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/education-43711606](https://www.bbc.com/news/education-43711606)

[https://www.prb.org/suicide-replaces-homicide-second- leading...](https://www.prb.org/suicide-replaces-homicide-second-leading- cause-death-among-us-teens/)

<comment><USER9> I never said the changes were exclusively for good, every change has good and bad sides, but implying things are bad because they are different is just as naive as saying changes are only for good

> Why is there a loneliness epidemic if everything is equal and social media > is just as good as real connections ?

Maybe because of the several _other_ societal changes that happened even before social media was invented? (Not saying it isn't part of the _current scenario_ though)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What is the inverse of loneliness? Belonging, a sense of community and companionship.

It is my perception that, at least in America and I suspect in many other places, competition pressure centered around places with strong "second place" (Job) opportunities combined with decades of civic mal-planning and treating symptoms (for some) rather than root causes (for all) have combined with a regressive tax/compensation structures to destroy the middle class and upward mobility.

There are not enough "first places" near jobs. The cost of those places and the demands of the jobs combine to sour the time, energy, and opportunity left for "third places" (#1). Areas and activities where idle time is spent when seeking connections to others. Those places, at least for me, also tend to have a high barrier to participation/entry and very poor discover-ability.

I theorize this might be related to the same issue described in another post, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19902782](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19902782) where "the old Internet" had many small venues, who's main reason for existence was not profit, but the benefit of their "members" (users). They were private, intimate, locations where fans of a given thing could gather and learn more about that thing and themselves; with small local histories that allowed for safer exploration.

A more stable place, where I had a real career I believed in, and a real home that I could start putting equity in to and around; a place where actual roots and structures and friends that would probably stay in the area also existed. That's what I feel we need to actually fight and win the battle against loneliness.

#1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place)

<comment><USER12> Here is an interesting thought: in UX design and when building a startup we are encouraged to interact with users to learn what they want and need, then we craft the experience and values around that. Does this ever happen in civic planning? Do city planners ever talk to the public, to design experts, to community leaders? I honestly don't know, but I suspect the answer is NO.

When I moved to Japan it was sort of strange to see residences and businesses in the same building. The longer I live here the clearer it becomes that zoning laws have a lot to do with good civic planning. Of course there are side effects to open zoning, communities don't always look as beautiful (but I think the blame also falls on planners / lack of community effort), but overall loose restrictions allow for more useful places. When I lived in Irvine, CA, I had to drive everywhere to do anything. The sad thing is many people choose communities like Irvine precisely because it is structured this way (I did initially). In truth, you can visually tell how depressed everyone is and how hard they try to make themselves feel better. Despite the average income being below 100k for couples, people are driving 50-130k cars, living in places they can barely afford all for the sake of image. I would argue that the image issue stems in large part from loneliness and a feeling of isolation.

In all, I agree that perhaps the issue is not any one factor, but all of them combined. Rise of technology, fall of communities, poor civic planning, increasing income disparity are just the tip of the iceberg.

<comment><USER13> Yes, planners talk to the general public. You can talk to them at your planning commission if you want by going up to them and well taking to them...

Additionally if you raise a good point during public comment a planning commissioner might even ask the planner to provide a response.

Also locally I know a lot of planners are pretty active on Twitter, so you can talk with them that ways.

Lastly a lot of bad planning is driven by politics (the planners are just staff who have to implement what the mayor and/or council says to do). If you want to change bad urban planning change your city's politics.

<comment><USER14> Isn't there a world of difference between UX designers going out to talk to the users themselves as opposed to waiting for the users to come to talk to them? It implies that there's a pretty strong self-selection bias.

<comment><USER15> Yes. But how do you propose a city planner selects the right people to talk to about urban planning?

The "users" (citizens) would first need to educate themselves on what's being proposed and what impacts it might have. They also might not be representative of the demographic actually being most affected. Maybe they just don't care.

By leaving it to citizens to self-select, you get the people who are motivated and at least marginally more educated on the issue than some random Joe off the street.

<comment><USER14> I don't see how these same points wouldn't apply to uses of software though. Most users don't know anything about software or good UX design. You also run the risk of surveying a demographic that's not the most impacted by the change. The problems seem to be identical here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've recently picked up the works of Vilem Flusser, a pretty underrated philosopher who touched on this subject in his 1983 book, _Post-History_. Much of what Flusser writes about is prescient, but in regard to increased loneliness in modern culture specifically, he argues that a major shift from _dialogic forms_ (speaking with) of communication to strictly _discursive forms_ (speaking to) is responsible. Even our so called "social media/social networks" are discursive and not dialogic—aimes more at telling people about ourselves than stimulating converstion. Part of this shift stems from specialization—when our interests are so highly individuated we have no shared grounds from which to speak, which reduces us to speaking about "pop culture" a shallow solutions to this growing gap in mutual experience.

(Even this post is discursive, not dialogic, just like many of the other parents in this thread, since the technological collective communication mechanism doesn't emulate real conversation—in online chats you're already speaking to everyone and no one thanks to the veneer of anonymity/new identity a user name gives you, coupled with the guarantee that others in an online forum are coming from disparate backgrounds. The notion of an audience with shared values/cultural origins has dissolved and been replaced be a universal Everyman/Noman which in turn leads us toward the dissolution of community outside the realm of technical specialization.

<comment><USER17> Social media where you "speak with" sounds fantastic, but how you would do it Slack/IRC is one way do it, those have usually tightly knitted community but there is definitely other more creative ways do that.

<comment><USER15> IMO it's just a question of design emphasis. That is, Slack/IRC work well for this kind of thing specifically because their rooms are created for the discussion of some broad topic. Social media (Facebook/Twitter/MySpace/Instagram/etc) generally doesn't because it doesn't have the same emphasis on topical discussions (Facebook groups being something of an exception, although uptake is limited).

So to create social media that lends itself this direction, take the focus away from individual expression in a bubble and put the focus on topics, just like Slack/IRC/forums/BBSes do/did.

Google+ was actually a step in this direction and was the home to a number of topic-focused communities as a result, but Google wasn't prepared to follow through. Maybe someone else will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > One might assume that the higher up the organization you go, the more > connected you feel, but that isn't necessarily the case. Research reported > in Harvard Business Review found that half of CEOs report feeling lonely and > 61% of those CEOs believed it hindered their performance.

I wonder why people would assume that?

I'd think being CEO would be the loneliest jobs.. You have no peers in your company; literally everyone is one of your reports.

People on the same team can complain to teammates about their management. Managers can complain to other managers about their reports or their managers.

Who does the CEO complain to? Probably their partners, other CEOs, friends, but either way it's most likely people outside of work.

<comment><USER19> Only if you're trying to keep some kind of aloof separation from the people you manage. There's no reason a CEO can't open up and be more inclusive. Things like asking for constructive criticism on your performance and then acting upon that will instill a level of trust that can then create a more open and inclusive working environment.

I'm not a CEO, but I am a CTO/founder and me and the CEO/founder are the de facto joint heads of the organisation.

I often say to my junior devs things like "don't believe everything I say as gospel. There are lots of false prophets in our industry, so a healthy level of cinicism is good. If you think I'm wrong, don't be afraid to say so".

This creates a perceived flatter structure that becomes more collaborative, which leads to a more social work environment. I can only assume it would help for those lonely at-the-top.

The way I see management of people is this: trust your smart people to make good decisions, when there is disagreement or conflict the manager is there to be an arbiter and a guide toward the bigger vision of the organisation, not a dictator

<comment><USER18> > Only if you're trying to keep some kind of aloof separation from the people > you manage. There's no reason a CEO can't open up and be more inclusive. > Things like asking for constructive criticism on your performance and then > acting upon that will instill a level of trust that can then create a more > open and inclusive working environment.

I don't believe I stated anything that implied managers can't be inclusive as I think the opposite. I actually think that's a fundamental part of their job.

I'm just skeptical managers and their reports can treat each other as equals because one of them has the power to terminate the other.

Great managers can make that imbalance of power feel nonexistent, but it nevertheless exists, and the issue is you will never know when someone is being fully honest with your or not.

I don't mean to imply that you do this, but sometimes bad managers seem to be unaware of this and get too friendly/cozy and it's actually a huge problem because they just keep doing things which make their reports uncomfortable but the reports are too afraid to speak up. I can only imagine that this is how a lot of sexual harassment begins.

<comment><USER20> can managers fire their direct reports at most companies? not sure how common this is, but at my (relatively small) company, my boss cannot simply decide to fire me. he would have to go to the director (my skip level) or possibly a VP to actually have hiring/firing authority. of course, he's been there a lot longer than me and could probably persuade them if I was underperforming or causing problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Last night I read the "Happiness" chapter (no. 18) from Steven Pinker's fine book, _Enlightenment Now_ , where he reviews data on loneliness in the US students (among two dozen other graphs in the first twenty chapters).

Pinker implies social critics abuse the words "epidemic" and "crisis".

After reviewing the downwards-sloping graph (plotted from 1978-2011) and more data, Pinker writes:

[quote] Modern life, then, has not crushed our minds and bodies, turned us into atomized machines suffering from toxic levels of emptiness and isolation, or set us drifting apart without human contact or emotion. How did this misconception arise? Partly it came out of the social critic's standard formula for sowing panic: Here's an anecdote, therefore it's a trend, therefore it's a crisis. But partly came from genuine changes in how people interact. People see each other less in traditional venues like clubs, churches, unions, fraternal organizations, and dinner parties, and more in informal gatherings via digital media. They confide in fewer distant cousins but more in co-workers. They are less likely to have large numbers of friends but also less likely to _want_ a large number of friends. But just because social life looks different today from the way it looked in the 1950s, it does not mean that humans, that quintessentially social species, have become any less social. [/quote]

<comment><USER22> Wait, people confide in coworkers? I've had some coworkers for 18 years. I'm fairly certain they don't know anything about me beyond what I'm working on currently. Why would I ever tell a coworker private information about myself?

<comment><USER23> > Why would I ever tell a coworker private information about myself?

Because you've spent most of your waking hours with them every day for a third of your life and we're social creatures.

If I didn't make friends with my coworkers, I wouldn't have friends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The rise of secularism probably is a factor. The social function of religion was to create a link between people and to regulate and control their coexistence. It provided a set of collective rituals, customs, festivities. Take that away and what remains is essentially the family unit and the market forces.

<comment><USER25> > Take that away and what remains is essentially the family unit and the > market forces.

Or what's left of them anyway.

Seems like you left zero-sum tribalism and perpetual consumerist distraction off of your list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'd replace 'lonely' with 'lacking perspective', due to life being unbelievably great.

It's hard to know the difference - just go without hot water, electricity or much food for a few days and then see how much 'loneliness' bothers you.

It's an epidemic of life being so incredible, that we're constantly bored and restless. Strong human connections are made through negative experiences, not ecstasy.

You can't have an awesome life of doing nothing difficult, and yet have great close relationships. You have to choose.

We have choice now - in the past, you had to suffer. Now, you can choose to, if you want. Most people are choosing to not and slowly degenerate into old age, with a bored half-smile on their face at best, cluelessly bitching about trivialities at worst. It's all fine - just remember, you have to choose to suffer, if you want to achieve a great life.

<comment><USER27> People without water and electricity suffer from loneliness too. Always did. The churches have structures that provide company to sick and old for that reason. If you ever read books from previous eras including war times, they deal with loneliness a lot.

Physical suffering does not make you not lonely. It just means it sux for more reasons then just one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> In some parts of Canada, the Red Cross sends volunteers to weekly check-ins in senior citizen communities. Nothing formal, just a friendly knock and a "how are you, need any help with anything today?" kind of conversation.

How long before working adults needs something similar because the conversations they have, which take up the majority of their day are all so "productized" and artificial?

</comment><comment><USER29> Alibaba/aliExpress specifically had studies that singles spend more money online. That is why they introduced the _singles day_ and made it such an event.

Loneliness is a problem, but we need to be aware that there are entities who specifically profit from a culture of solitude: "And there I was.. Alone with my ads, looking at made up pictures of other people's lifes."

We are in the middle of the creation of a perfect consumer, which has to have a hole in themselves that can never be filled, a itch that never goes away when scratched, in constant need.

And arguably there is solid economic incentive to go further down that road.

</comment><comment><USER30> There's an upside to loneliness for employers. Fewer distractions from the job. Less likely to mate and require higher insurance premiums for a spouse and children. Less likely to join a union or act as a a group against the employer.

<comment><USER31> > _Less likely to mate and require higher insurance premiums for a spouse and > children_

Lonely people are a tremendous risk to themselves and others, they do a lot of spontaneous dying and tend to get progressively worse at caring about doing their job. I've seen employee loneliness hurt company bottom lines, I don't think that's rare.

<comment><USER32> But are they as big a risk as married people with children or potential agitators or unionists?

Is there even any objective data on this kind of comparison?

<comment><USER31> > _But are they as big a risk as married people with children_

I don't have any objective data to offer in the middle of a workday, but conventionally, married breadwinners with children make for model employees.

<comment><USER33> Married couples going through divorce/infidelity/family/kids/health issues(which is not rare) is a tremendous risk as well, right?

I don't understand why lonely people are automatically classified as a tremendous risk. I've experienced multiple times that exactly the opposite is often the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This article struck a chord with me. I am a middle aged immigrant in the tech industry battling loneliness since I was about 15. Outwardly I probably seem to be doing ok.

While I see a lot about the challenges to public health and society by the loneliness epidemic, I haven't been able to find much in the way of what lonely people can do do build community especially in the atheist / agnostic realm.

Over the course of reading the comments, I found a few resources that I've compiled, please pile on if you know of others

Sunday Assembly [https://www.sundayassembly.com/](https://www.sundayassembly.com/)

Unitarian Universalist churches [https://www.uua.org/](https://www.uua.org/)

Meetups [https://www.meetup.com](https://www.meetup.com) \- I've tried several meetups but nothing has really stuck as in finding people who consistently come for an activity and the opportunity to connect more deeply

As I think about it for someone like myself I am looking for more "church without the religion" outlets than say activity groups like say hiking etc because i find the activity groups more focused on the activity than generally making friends that you can call on for any kind of emergency, real world problem

</comment><comment><USER35> A lack of shared philosophy means there's no open, shared spaces. Like tonight, I'm going to a Knights of Columbus meeting. On Thursday, we're leading marriage prep at our church. On Monday, it's my men's club meeting. Later in the month, we're having a church BBQ. Most of the time, we're over socialized.

For the elderly, we have a shut-ins ministry to visit them. For the poor, the Vincent de Paul society still goes two-by-two to all those who have asked. We've gotten rid of churches, replaced them with nothing particularly inspiring, and now we're wondering where all the social cohesion went.

EDIT: I will point out that I'm not restricting myself only to churches here. I think, in the past, America also had this characteristic -- anyone who believed in American ideals and sought to further them was an American. De Tocqueville mentioned this quality of Americans (every American is a president) in his various writings on American social structure. Unfortunately with the rise of identity politics and ethnic factionalism, we've lost this notion of 'America as an idea', as is seen in the reluctance of people to serve on juries, for example.

<comment><USER36> I really miss church. Having a day where you knew you'd meet up with friendly people, have a potluck after, and maybe head to the beach, go for a hike, etc. was really nice.

It's a shame I was a fraud since I never truly believed, and eventually stopped pretending. I haven't found anything to fill that part of my life since.

<comment><USER37> Atheism will always struggle to grow its ranks until it replaces the necessary features provided by religion. I'm an atheist/agnostic who spent a few years in a very cult-like christian denomination. I can say a lot of bad things about it, but it did help me to become more social and taught me a lot about the benefits of shared beliefs. Having a network of people to call on in times of need is priceless. Regular socialization and group participation helped me graduate from being an anti-social outcast.

You can form groups around hobbies and activities, but the bonds just aren't strong enough to overcome our natural tendencies to judge others or take offense at the slightest indiscretions.

I think a lot of people like me end up Unitarian Universalists just so they can gain some semblance of a community again.

<comment><USER38> Unitarian Universalisy is exactly the church for atheists who see the value in the non religious parts of church. The problem is most people don't understand the value of this, so most people won't get it unless they are driven to it by religion, and religious people tend to not notice that religion isn't the main reason the good parts of church are good.

Religion is to church like the stone is to stone soup, including the part where dirt on the stone can mess up the soup.

<comment><USER35> > religious people tend to not notice that religion isn't the main reason the > good parts of church are good.

I strongly disagree with this statement. While I am quite involved in my church now, and think that's great. A belief in God (independent of a congregation, and at times, in spite of the congregation) has kept me sane at the worst points in my life.

I get that you do not see the value in this -- that is your right of course. However, please do not project your feelings on religious people.

<comment><USER39> _However, please do not project your feelings on religious people._

As a formerly very devoutly religious person, I have to say I agree with the parent comment that religion is the worst part of organized religion. I have been much happier (and to your point, "saner") since I stopped believing. One of the things I definitely understand but don't miss is the defensiveness that comes out when someone says they are better off without religious belief.

Returning to the main topic of loneliness/community, I think we can have a sense of shared purpose without needing a sense of higher purpose. I hope we can find a way as a society to rebuild the carrot of strong communities without needing the threat of loss of salvation as stick.

<comment><USER25> > One of the things I definitely understand but don't miss is the > defensiveness that comes out when someone says they are better off without > religious belief.

The "defensiveness" wasn't in response to an expression of personal experience as you claim.

The pull out quote was characterizing a diverse group of people, including scientists, scholars, and former atheists, as somehow oblivious. I think patronizing hand-waving about defensiveness is unfair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> There is one facet to this which I find interesting -- and that's how disconnected we become from the emotional impact of our decisions.

In a small closed community, we cannot help but be part of a system of social and emotional feedback. The decisions that we make have consequences, and this is very much the social environment that we have evolved for (confined to prehistory for obvious reasons).

Those feedback loops have been largely severed in "modern" (i.e. last few thousand years) large-scale, urbanized, literate societies -- a fundamental change in the control systems that govern human behavior.

With so many of us running partially open-loop ... is it any wonder that we see a proliferation of pathological behaviors?

Can our latest (early 21st century) technology help to restore some of those connections? To help us get feedback on the impact of our speech, our writing, our choices? Could this help us re-establish an earlier, more natural way of relating and connecting to our fellow human beings?

<comment><USER41> I think a lot of this has to do with the lack of stable groups of a size that enables social effects and feedback to dominate - things like guilt, shame and reciprocity. Without this sort of group interactions become much more stressful and we don't feel like we belong.

[https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social- med...](https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-media-affect- math-dunbar-number-friendships)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Too much of our identity is tied to our employment.

Add to it the fact that our economic system is inflationary (and badly measured at that), not working literally causes one to fall behind.

So no one can actually take time off to do something different, cultivate lasting relationships, join a guitar club, play stupid games, travel, spend time with kids, spouses, family etc. without FOMO on inflation and career.

<comment><USER43> Nicely put! Did you notice that not even in sports can we relax and make lasting friendships and a relaxing atmosphere? If you didn't win, you went there for nothing. As a result, everybody seems to be concentrating on keeping score and winning and not on having a good time.

<comment><USER42> > Did you notice that not even in sports can we relax and make lasting > friendships and a relaxing atmosphere?

Team sports are different. They tend to create lasting friendships quite often. Not always but quite often. Same for music bands, tiny startups, backpacking groups etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I sense that there is an exploitation of human nature at work in this. Fear and outrage get attention, and attention gets revenue. It's amazing the number of times that both liberal and conservative personalities are associated with the world's most horrific events because that triggers outrage and gains clicks, and then turns out to have been fabricated via 'recontexting'.

Outrage drives polarization and polarization drives people apart. Fear drives caution and caution keeps people from getting together.

At this point, the only antidote for loneliness is to be aware of it and develop the courage to introduce yourself to someone you don't know. And then try to start doing that on a regular basis.

<comment><USER45> _It 's amazing the number of times that both liberal and conservative personalities are associated with the world's most horrific events because that triggers outrage and gains clicks, and then turns out to have been fabricated via 'recontexting'._

What's an example of this recontexting?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This article is one of the most disgustingly bugman things I've ever read. It doesn't matter that America is a soul crushing gladiatorial pit; a miserable scramble over a few crumbs tossed us by the reptilians at the top, it matters that American corporate _efficiency_ may be at risk.

Virtually everything about modern American life is alienating, mostly because of this mindset and the downstream products of it. But if it were good for corporate efficiency, I'm pretty sure Harvard Business School types would be all for it.

</comment><comment><USER47> Curious,any reason why I see similar articles on HN?

The topic resonates strongly with me, is it especially a problem with tech workers?

</comment><comment><USER48> It's probably worthwhile to point out that the trend toward remote work poses real risks to remote workers by increasing their physical isolation. I work at a remote-first company, and I've worked remotely for other organizations, and the high-bandwidth, spontaneous and accidental interactions and information sharing, the sense of togetherness, are distinctly absent in a lot of remote work, regardless of such benefits as avoiding a commute.

</comment><comment><USER49> One clue as to why there is a problem might be in the framing of the article, where the individual's despair only matters because it might start to impinge on someone's bottom line.

This is an old problem, called "alienation". Marx wrote about it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation)

</comment><comment><USER50> I suspect the loneliness epidemic will be a catalyst for worshipping of AI gods in the not so distant future, which is a bit unsettling but seems inevitable.

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm sure that loneliness is depressing, unhealthy, debilitating, etc, etc, etc. For many people. Maybe even for most people.

But I'm happiest when I'm doing something that's interesting and challenging. And when I'm focused, other people are mainly a distraction.

So for me, a few friends are enough. Plus chatting online. Sharing what I know, and asking for help.

<comment><USER52> If you have a few friends, you're not lonely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> People should go out more... There's a life outside these walls!!

</comment><comment><USER54> Reminds me of stories like these[0]. :(

[0] - [https://www.oddee.com/item_98735.aspx](https://www.oddee.com/item_98735.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER55> Is this limited to US? How about Canada, Australia, England etc? Anyone who lived in US and one of these first world countries care to comment?

</comment><comment><USER56> can't comment on this topic as whole but I would like to chime in from IT perspective -- lot of folks in IT industry with educational background in Computer Science or Mathematics tend to have anti social / cold / weird personalities. Maybe Universities and Colleges should incorporate 2 courses on how to act more social / warm as part of their curriculum.

</comment><comment><USER57> Could this loneliness be a primary factor in the increased sensitivity and fragility of younger generations?

I also wonder if loneliness is a key factor in some people preferring lies and deceptions in exchange for kindness in their interpersonal relationships. I know this may sound strange expressed so directly, but I have seen numerous comments on HN claim exactly this preference very directly and clearly.

<comment><USER58> >the increased sensitivity and fragility of younger generations?

Can you cite your source for this assertion? Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> this is why I'm working on this [http://foxie.cool](http://foxie.cool) we need an easier and simpler way to interact with the world around us!

</comment><comment><USER60> Calling what's happening with modern society "loneliness epidemic" is like saying that people in a building set on fire are "suffering from heat exposure and air pollution". A lot of social processes/constructions that make our society stable have been hijacked for profit or deliberately sabotaged for political gains. In both cases it's usually a product of extremely short-term thinking or highest forms of cynicism. Feeling disconnected is nothing more than an illusory side-effect of a whole host of other things.

<comment><USER61> Illusory side effect?

Not at all illusory to my mind. We've never been more disconnected _from people_ as we become ever more connected _to the net._ And that, is _certainly_ not where I thought we'd end up or were even heading for most of the time I've worked in tech.

Society has had 40 years being persuaded to believe in the cult of the individual and that society and community does not exist, and did not matter anyway. All that real terms GDP growth gives fewer and fewer community services and resources because of reasons - political dogma and artificial commercialisation mostly.

Just about every resource, amenity, hobby and club my parents would recognise, and had locally, has been commercialised, consolidated and centralised. There's now fewer of them, and so they're further and further apart. Now it needs transport, and planning. Pubs, clubs, shops and small music venues are closing in record numbers, and besides who can afford (time or money) to go out any more? So Netflix and chill.

Now add apps that try to make every single human interaction no longer actually need human interaction. No need to talk to someone in a bar, or when meeting friends to get a date, we got Tinder marketing images to swipe, and instant messaging to avoid making a call or visit.

Maybe I'm just getting too old but _I miss_ friends calling every week or so just to talk crap for 30 minutes. That got spaced ever wider - <USER2> comparatively rare - everyone's on fucking facebook or working on their instagram image. Calls are _far_ more likely to feel intrusive. The other half can talk for England, but spends a fraction of the time on calls compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

Any more disconnected and there'll be a moat around everyone's houses. Convince me it's all illusory. :)

<comment><USER62> To offer a counter-point: for me, all those social networks and internet in general facilitated some of the most meaningful friendships of my life. Mind you, I am talking about real-life friendships, not just "internet friends" kind of stuff.

For example, two of my closest friends that I hang out with on the order of multiple times a week (dinners, concerts, sports games, etc.), I would have probably never met them if it wasn't for the common facebook groups. We don't even use FB that much (I log in about once every couple of days for 5-10 minutes at most), but I definitely attribute a chunk of the success of our friendship to FB. That's how we met, that's how we find new events and things to do (oh, your acquaintance X liked that new art exhibit opening on the museum FB page, you would probably be interested in checking that out with your friends!).

Also, I don't know where you live, but in my area, things are only getting better in terms of places for meaningful socialization. New small niche bars, concert venues, and hobby places (hacker spaces/libraries/garage co-ops/hobby- specific clubs/etc.) open up at a regular rate and seem to attract a lot of people, many of which become regulars. I talk to bartenders quite often, and most of them seem to echo that sentiment.

>we got [...] instant messaging to avoid making a call or visit.

Maybe if someone uses messaging as a REPLACEMENT to hanging out in person, they never wanted to hang out in the first place? To me, that sounds like a good thing, because in this scenario, messaging cuts out forced in-person interactions of low quality.

<comment><USER61> I've made plenty of real-life friends online too - difficult not to when you've transitioned through BBS's and everything since.

Social is the point it got less social, and more about algorithm of outrage and reaction - of the knee-jerk kind, oh, messaging and scheduling. Or sometimes trying to give carefully perfect posed glimpses into imperfect lives. More like movie of the life and marketing themselves than the life. Of course that's simply amplifying the bad tendencies of people as well as good, but it has brought a change in quality too.

If it's just me reaching dinosaur age, well the kids and friends seem far less satisfied with their lot than I ever remember anyone at their age - <USER3> still claiming to be mainly happy. I'm not even going to try and pick that apart here. :)

> things are only getting better in terms of places for meaningful > socialization in my area

High streets are struggling, and it's not just retail - so I'm not sure where you are! Locally, and if the media is to be believed, everywhere that is not central London is losing all those sorts of amenities at similar rates. Libraries rate a special mention - they have been decimated everywhere, including London. Sure, it's not quite a cultural desert, but considering the growth of the town you'd hope there would be more not fewer venues and choices. I can venture further afield to a major city centre and find plenty of bars and restaurants, but even there fewer choices overall. Far more chance of 5 identikit Weatherspoons in place of the interesting, and great, independents.

> they never wanted to hang out in the first place

I suppose I walked into that. :p Thing is, it's not just me - I hear many muttering similarly at work, or when we do meet up, and we _are_ talking on a post of an epidemic of loneliness after all. Everyone seems to be spread more and more thinly. Drowning, not waving?

But you generally know easily enough when people have moved on, lost interest, or are blanking you - that's something qualitatively different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> At Amazon today on one their largest email lists there is a discussion of why you should not say "hi" or any other communication with a female at any time but especially when standing at an elevator inside the building.

This position of loneliness is going to get worse before it gets better when the prevailing attitude is, don't talk to anyone.

<comment><USER64> Interesting. What is the logic behind not saying « hi » to females?

I know that this is sexist, but I would at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Not being familiar with these email list, I'm unsure as to the general « feel » of these discussions.

Can you provide more insight?

<comment> wes-k Is this person just being nice? Are they going to follow me? This is on my daily commute, is this going to become a thing? Does this person have an agenda?

We may feel it is a simple and kind gesture but it isn't. Because woman are harassed so freaking much they basically always have to be on guard. Never know when a nice person will turn into a creep or worse turn into an assailant.

(It was only through my partner telling me her experiences that I learned these things)

<comment><USER65> People who feel like that should seek therapy. Seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Once I found a really bright employee and I asked him, why don't you talk more and socialize more? He said well once I did exactly that and someone with large follower count on twitter made mockery of my views since then I keep my personal opinion to myself.

Another one told me, that he doesn't really have a lot in common with people around him and that he considers online community where people are exactly interested in what he likes requires lot less mental overhead.

Due to social media follower count, some people love to pick out others and insult them on social media only because they happen to have a different opinion, here you don't even need to hold on wrong opinion - holding a different opinion does the job.

Before internet/social media, there were very few and expensive ways to get together with people across the geographic boundaries so you always had to please people around you and sometimes get them interested in the things you like, to have fun with them.

But this changed with internet, now you can choose some very obscure topic and you'll find other people who are interested in the same thing several clicks away.

And your mom is sick at home and can't go to supermarket for shopping? No problem, Amazon home delivery is one click away.

Before that, you had to keep a friend who lived close to you and also help him and keep him happy so that he helped you when you need him, like buying some stuff for your mom while she's sick and you are away.

Due to technology, there is simply less need of friends etc... And many don't consider it a good ROI over their time to keep friends. I heard it several times in valley, if you want a friend, get a dog.

<comment><USER67> I find this observation interesting because, in my own biased perspective, people are finding it more and more difficult to compromise. And maybe that's because we're not forced to compromise with people to live our lives anymore.

We can surround ourselves with people who believe what we do and if we don't want to interact with anyone, we can just order stuff online. Creating and existing in our own little bubbles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I miss living in the dorms in college. Sure my standard of living is much higher now, but I think I was happier in the dorms surrounded by interesting people.

</comment><comment><USER69> This is a social problem in need of a technical solution. I'm waiting for a startup that can be accurately described as "Uber, but for real friends." Eventually they can phase out the contractors in favor of an ML/AI/ELIZA solution. /s

<comment><USER70> This is satire right?

<comment><USER71> It's marked as such (the "/s" at the end). But I didn't realize that it was satire until I got to the "/s". Which is scary.

<comment><USER69> > But I didn't realize that it was satire until I got to the "/s". Which is > scary.

Yeah, I'm only starting to really come to terms with how much technical culture has really twisted many important concepts to suit itself (and only itself), and has so normalized those distortions that your eyes just glide over the contradictions they create.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Any data if the suburbs and car culture contribute to this?

<comment><USER73> Urbanization certainly doesn't solve it.

<comment><USER25> Agreed. People riding busses and trains for 10+ hours per week aren't exactly in better shape than people with equivalent car commutes.

<comment><USER74> People living in sprawl and in nonwalkable places are more likely to be overweight, get less exercise, and spend less time walking

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629517/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629517/)

<comment><USER25> I was talking about work life balance and discretionary time, not physical fitness.

Also some people have physical abilities such that walking is not a valid lifestyle choice. For instance, two year olds.

I'm pro-walkable spaces. But it's not across the board superior to other arrangements.

<comment><USER74> Normally walkability also correlates with density of both businesses and houses which also encourages people to live closer to where they work. Compare that to a business park in the middle of the suburbs which requires a long distance commute to reach it.

> For instance, two year olds.

Probably easier to push a child on a stroller through a walkable area than to put it in a car and drive to a location. Less time-consuming and better for the environment as well.

As well as walkable spaces being better for the elderly who can't legally drive and the handicapped who can't legally drive as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Think a lot of people coming to US are immigrants.

And some also come from countries where they had much tighter community and shared life. But they choose US because it allows for more individualistic freedom and upsides (as you don't have a socialist government who eats into your income/wealth through taxes in order to equalise the whole society), so people feel more rewarded here.

Constitution guarantees strong property rights here and your land can't be taken away from you for "social good" like in most European countries.

Obviously, with this in place there is no reason for an invidual to share his resources like land with any other person, because in his mind, it's his hardworking which got him those nice things and now no one but him as any right over them. This over time creates more loneliness as people don't really see benefit of dealing with you. If I share my ranch with my neighbors, obviously, they'll want to maintain good relationship with me but what if I don't even let them roam around it? Or shoot their dog if it tries to trespass? Now you see the problem?

This system optimizes for greater individual gain but come with some side effects like loneliness as you live in a very competitive society, it gets hard to trust others. If you become way richer than your neighbor because your company did good, you might no longer want to make your neighbor part of your life because they can no longer relate to your problems and wonder that even tho this person have lot of money, how come this person isn't happy?

As I understand those who are in US feel everyone must work to support themselves and government should not support anyone through tax revenue for them to sit at home and watch Netflix or play Xbox etc...

They always had a choice between going back to home and living in a tightly knit society but they choose America only because the upsides are greater here and it attracts those who optimize for individual interest like individual freedom/wealth etc...

Many of my American colleges do not understand why I was working for 30K euros a year back in Europe when I could easily get 100K job here in states.

Pace of life is also quite fast in US. Now I don't mean that Americans walk 10x faster to work but that due to the large size of the market, if your product takes off - you can become very rich over a year or month and your life changes completely. Very few places have this ability to support entrepreneurs, sure in a third world country like India, if you become a celebrity, it might take a year to become very rich but what if you are an entrepreneur simply creating products in your garage or coding from a coffee shop? Nearly impossible and unheard of.

I've lived in Europe, US and currently living in India (as wife is from India) and there is growing dissent in middle class here because government have been put lots of taxes on middle class and offering lots of benefit to poor people as a result middle class people don't feel justified in paying taxes and try various loopholes and under table tricks.

It makes sense if you think India is large and size of poor population is large compared to the middle class who are getting taxed left and right. If you give them a chance, most will just love US and strong property rights US has.

If you want to test this, simply ask people to cast their votes in a ballot. Do you feel like you are not getting benefits for the taxes you pay? If you only allow middle class in India to vote, you'll see a lot of them somewhere around 90% in non metro cities gonna vote, "yes". Only people in big city might feel differently as they really get some benefits like better transformer, 24/7 power and clean water etc...

Even the villages are slowly getting empty and parents complain that the kids are not able to come to their place even on key celebrations like Diwali ( which is huge over here)

Only difference is there is no party in India which supports individualistic views like we've in US.

<comment><USER75> A lot of people move back as well. I see it all the time now, it's just not worth it.

<comment><USER76> What's not worth it ? Moving back or staying in the US ?

<comment><USER75> Life here in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I would like to make 2 points

Firstly, In the past there were certain ways of being social - clubs, churches etc. But just because humans engage in a different form of being social doesn't immediately mean all is gone. It depends on whether the individual goes to meaningful meetup groups or whether he/she uses tinder and calls it social. There are way too many options and being distracted between many of these is true

Secondly, Humans have had a social need, yes. That is how we evolved, yes. But evolution never stops, it is like walking on a slow gradient curve, each step is probably 1 or 2 generations. Why is human evolution viewed as static? Why is the declining need to be social today viewed as bad? Are we sure that people being alone are really feeling lonely?

When change happens in the environment, side effects do show until the mind and body adapt to the new environment. We could well see a future (100-200 years from now) where a human isn't necessarily social because of the underlying need, that need could get quite minimized in future generations. That human could be social when he/she needs to and chooses to do so people of similar thinking / mind and could be by themselves for long periods of time. Why is this viewed as bad?

Such humans could be extremely well suited for space travels because they can easily handle being by themselves rather than people who constantly need to be in groups to affirm their existence

<comment><USER78> Many things in life "could be" true, but with things such as this (human psychology related), it often takes very long time periods before the truth begins to show itself. This would be my reason for considering these major social changes as _potentially_ bad, and certainly worthy of concern/attention/discussion.</comment></comment>