DDwarf Fortress Defies Materialism - <AUTHOR> https://truthonly.com/ru/article/read/247/editorial/dwarf-fortress-defies-materialism.html <comment><USER2> TL;DR: Dwarf Fortress fan learns about DNA from popular science articles, forms comprehensively superficial theory of life, the universe and everything, based on analogy to computer code and his estimation that nothing could be more complex than Dwarf Fortress.

I've never really thought a quote from an Adam Sandler movie was one to be repeated, but "Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Bonus: it does double duty summarizing the US presidential debates.

<comment><USER3> That's a bit harsh. The analogy made is not an uncommon one, but that doesn't mean there isn't some merit to the idea. I appreciate that people are at least trying to learn new things and form their own ideas.

<comment><USER4> While I agree it's a bit harsh, some of these extrapolations had me saying, "Oh really?" to myself.

> Biology is one of the last fields of science adopting the tech revolution by > switching from analog to digital analysis. DNA has only recently been > discovered. DNA sequencing is in its earliest stages.

> There is not enough space to fit "software" hereditary behavioral > definitions into DNA. If Dwarf Fortress comes close to encoding basic > behavioral patterns requiring 10 megabytes of data, we must look for a chunk > of genetic data of that size.

> Good programmers try to restrict their functions to no more than 6 > parameters when writing code. Thus, a driving system with learning ability > depends on over 40,000 programmatic functions. Those functions operate with > only a dozen of sensors, wheels, and breaks. What if you had to write self- > learning software for controlling all the muscle groups in an ant organism? > Clearly it would require much more than 790mb for a human or 117mb for an > ant of data space to store.

> The "software" that runs the ant must include basic instincts, sensory > recognition patterns, social interactions, spacial awareness, navigation > routines, some learning ability, and threat estimation in its ancestral > memory in addition to all the hardware schematics. Each muscle group must > work in tandem with the senses. How much data would that amount of code > require? An easy way to estimate it is to simulate those behaviors on your > computer. Having some familiarity with multiple programming languages, I > would guess that 117mb is totally insufficient for all that.

> If complex data compression is shown to play a major role in the life of an > organism, my argument could be falsified. At the same time, the field of > biology would be revolutionized.

> One might object that a negative proposition of the form "x does not explain > y" is empirically indefensible. The form of my argument, however, follows > another pattern: "there is not enough observable x in y." Such statements > are empirically demonstrable and empirically falsifiable. For example, the > statement "there are fewer than 10 goats in this wood" is empirical. Just > search the wood to confirm it. By analogy, we should expect at least as many > discoveries of genes controlling behaviors as we have for protein generation > and regulatory genes. But we do not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Kind of strange that there's no mention of actual behavioral genomics research here. Aside from the quip that:

> Scientists have found some genetic code that contributes to hereditary > behaviors, but the bulk of it is unlikely to ever be found. Why? Because it > plainly does not fit.

This is plainly not true. We've found _lots_ of evidence for the genomic basis of hereditary behaviors. See Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis for example - plenty of statistical research is out there.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did look up recent findings and they were meager. I followed your advice and looked up "Complex Traint Analysis." It is also quite meager. Were you able to find something close to 10mb? If you did, link please. I would expect that that category of genes would get a technical term alongside with "regulatory" and "encoding" genes the moment enough of them surfaced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What's vastly different between software instructions in dwarf fortress vs DNA is what actually computes the code. There is a negligible amount of complexity in made-made computers vs what goes on in a cell. There are layers upon layers of complexity that goes from genotype to phenotype.

I am a bioinformatician with a genetics background. I've always had this abstract overview of DNA as a highly compressed dataset and geneticists are essentially trying to figure out the encoding.

<comment><AUTHOR> hey I am glad that you are an expert and your criticism is of this nature! With my limited knowledge, I see exactly what you mean and I agree with you. There is another difference, however, between the two computes that I think you have omitted in your comment. The cell's inner complexity shares the same information space as the organisms "computes," unlike a computer CPU (and the operating system) which is defined and built by a file entirely outside of the 10mb limit I've set. The cell must fit all of it right next to each other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _simulating complex behavior requires at least 10mb of data_

The author has not shown that that much is required. At most, the author has shown that it has been done with that much. Seeing as having only thousands of states is apparently enough to make a Turing machine's behavior independent of ZFC ([http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2725](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2725)), I really doubt this "10 megabyte" lower bound.

<comment><USER7> OP's mind would probably be absolutely blown by the demo scene if he thinks 10MB of data is impressive. Also, the NN example is interesting because no one in deep learning thinks that you actually need all those parameters: most NNs can be shrunk by 90%+ with some simple tweaks like quantizing neural weights and pruning them (speculation is that you need to train large parameterized NNs to make the path through high-dimensional space to the optimal program smooth enough for gradient descent to travel).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Even when behavior is mostly learned rather than hard-coded, the ability to > learn itself must be hard-coded. Such code occupies hundreds of megabytes of > data. Consider the first generation of software for self-driving cars. > NVIDIA's deep-learning drivers for self driving cars utilize "27 million > connections and 250 thousand parameters."5 Good programmers try to restrict > their functions to no more than 6 parameters when writing code. Thus, a > driving system with learning ability depends on over 40,000 programmatic > functions.

Obviously the author has completely misunderstood what is meant by "parameters" in this context. The parameters here are those of a neural network and thus they are a result of, not a precondition for the learning process. Instead, he should strictly use the implementation of the neural network for comparison, whose uncompressed human-readable size is probably going to be almost small enough to fill into his size constraints.

And that is assuming there is not a sufficiently good algorithm for learning animal behaviors that is much simpler than CNNs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Legit criticism, I actually tried to get a clarification on that, what those words mean exactly. I read most of the CNN doc and went ahead and wrote that, because I felt that it was the best meaning in context. I could be wrong about that. However, the CNN image itself must be over 1GB. So if those parameters are simply a matrix fed to the learning algorythm, the algo itself still ends up huge. > "And that is assuming there is not a sufficiently good algorithm for learning animal behaviors that is much simpler" > Right, but assuming something is not is the default unless there is evidence that something is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the author vastly overestimates the amount of information required to encode complex behaviours.

In general, the minimum number of bits/base-pairs required to encode some behaviour (i.e. the length of the shortest program which exhibits that behaviour) is uncomputable, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity)

From an empirical point of view, evolution can't plan ahead and doesn't care about modularity (or at least, such things are higher-level effects which aren't directly selected for). It progresses via massively parallel monte carlo search, rather than "improving" a single individual. This is very different to most software development practices, and would tend to result in much more compact (genetic or computer) code.

The results of our software development practices are _incredibly_ bloated compared to products of evolution. 10MB for an artifact like Dwarf Fortress is _huge_ ; we would likely make very significant gains if we compressed it using a superoptimiser (as long as we ignore petty issues like the heat-death of the Universe!).

The advantage our practices have over evolution by natural selection is that they're _much_ faster. Our software is intelligently designed by programmers, who can think ahead about what features or changes might be useful and make specific, targetted changes to the code to bring them about. The redundancy, modularity, structure, separation-of-concerns, etc. which we strive for in our software facilitates this process.

Wikipedia says Dwarf Fortress has been around since 2002. Even if evolution were 'guided' towards such a thing, we would never expect it to come up with such a program in mere decades (although it can certainly make measurable optimisations, and small-but-important changes such as drug resistance).

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't for a moment believe that Dwarf Fortress contains a true 10MB of irreducibly complex behavioural code. Rather this is simply an indication that our computer languages and compression systems are much less efficient than what nature uses for DNA.

<comment><USER11> "I don't for a moment believe that Dwarf Fortress contains a true 10MB of irreducibly complex behavioural code. Rather this is simply an indication that our computer languages and compression systems are much less efficient than what nature uses for DNA."

You can test an information stream for entropy and you can also determine whether there is any entropy left in a compressed information stream.

So while I think we should certainly respect the accumulated wisdom and refinement that trillions of cell divisions have stored up over the eons, it's not obvious that "nature" has better compression than we do.

<comment><USER10> > You can test an information stream for entropy and you can also determine > whether there is any entropy left in a compressed information stream.

I don't think that measures the thing that needs to be measured here. Kolmogorov complexity is famously uncomputable; the output of a pseudo-random number generator will be high-entropy but "really" only contains a tiny amount of information (the initial seed).

And more to the point, DNA certainly contains more than 10MB of entropy; the claim is that most of this DNA is junk. Fair enough, but I expect the 10MB of DF code is also mostly junk: irrelevant details that the programmers were unnecessarily required to specify or the compiler picked out, rather than actually expressing the details of behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Biology is one of the last fields of science adopting the tech revolution by > switching from analog to digital analysis.

Barricelli was running experiments about digital organisms back in the early 50's right before the identification of the structure of DNA. Quite literally sharing time with atomic/hydrogen bomb calculations. I find it a bit tough to press onwards when sweeping statements like the above are made as a build up to the argument.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't believe it's a fair comparison... modern CPUs can run, by definition, a pretty basic range of operations, and every intent has to be encoded in a extremely complex sequence of commands. Given a certain CPU architecture and a certain algorithm to implement, someone might be able to properly infer the expected size of a compiled binary. But, by pushing the concept to the absurd, one day we might build a super-sophisticated CPU that runs code at such an high level of abstraction that the Dawrf Fortress game is encoded in a single binary digit, whose sole meaning is "Play Dwarf Fortress". Between the 10MB binary running in modern CPUs and the single 1-bit binary running in our hypotetical "super-CPU" stand all the possible devices that have been existed and that will be ever invented... How can you place a living cell in this scale? Unless you can do it, any discussion about binary size is simply pointless...

<comment><AUTHOR> The "super-CPU" that you have described has to come from the same DNA. So if you take bits away from behavior to make "super-CPU," the definition of the "super-CPU" has consumed the data that used to encode behavior, leaving us with the same problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think author severely under-appreciates how high decompression factor the whole process DNA->proteins->animal->living can have.

Each step of this compression is incredibly lossy and insanely tweaked towards good enough outcome.

</comment><comment><USER15> If I were going to engage in the same sort of wide-eyed speculation the author of the piece is happy to deploy then I would say he's looking at the wrong level. The DNA contains instructions for growing a brain; the structure of the brain encodes for the hereditary behaviors. Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

</comment><comment><USER16> Dwarf Fortress defies a silly strawman of materialism, more like. I think it's safe to say that most materialists wouldn't claim that all human behavior comes from our genes.</comment>


Web 2.0: Yahoo to further open Web platform, attempt social network model for its services - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/04/24/web-2-0-yahoo-radically-open-its-platforms

<comment><USER2> Yahoo's core business is in a bit of trouble (the fact that their experiment with Google AdWords has been rumored to double their revenue is an indication of how badly they were monetizing before more than anything else), but they are still experimenting with interesting new directions.

I only hope this sort of stuff will survive the acquisition (assuming it happens, but I'm pretty sure it will)

</comment><comment><USER3> About time! Now Yahoo is talking.</comment>


Doing a Job (1982) - <AUTHOR> http://govleaders.org/rickover.htm

<comment><USER2> "first use of a controlled nuclear reactor"?

I'd say that was the Hanford reactor, that was used to produce plutonium for the Manhattan Project.

Perhaps the Nautilus' reactor was the first to produce usable power, I don't think Hanford's heat was used for anything.</comment>


World Happiness Report, 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://kyso.io/becca/world-happiness <comment><USER2> The World Happiness Report numbers are based only on the Cantril ladder. I don't get why they don't use an average of the Cantril ladder, positive affect, and negative affect.

The Cantril ladder asks respondents the following question:

"Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?"

Is this what people typically associate with "happiness"? This is more like "life satisfaction" to me. [1]

[1][https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-happiest-people-world- jon...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-happiest-people-world-jon-clifton)

<comment><USER3> Thank you for that! The results make so much more sense to me now. I've lived in Canada, the US, the UK and Japan. One of the reasons I choose to remain in Japan is that people seem a _lot_ happier here. This is in complete contrast with the results (which ranks Canada up near the top).

I'm Canadian and while this is a completely subjective point of view, one of the things I don't like about living there is that people seem perpetually pissed off about one thing or another. The world is just wrong. It's all going to hell in a hand basket. It shouldn't be like this. You can't have a conversation on any topic without people complaining about one thing or another (perhaps it's just the people I hung out with :-) ).

In Japan, people seem happy with their lot. However, it would be completely ingenuous to say that they think they have life easy. They've got stupid bosses and long hours and really low pay and nothing they can do about it other than to go to the enkai, drink a lot and hope that their stupid boss remembers the drunken rant that will save the company. Women and children barely see the father in the family except on public holidays. If women work, they have to put in stupid hours and also do all the house work. Children have lots of stress because your entire career is practically mapped out when you take your entrance exam for high school. If you goofed off when you were 14 or 15, then cut your salary in half for the rest of your life.

But the big difference is that they don't complain about it. It's all "Yeah, it's difficult, but what are you going to do? You can only do your best" and soldier on. And I think that's a common theme in Asia. In the west people seem to act like spoiled brats in comparison -- always in a funk about _something_ , even though by comparison they have it dramatically better than anybody else in the world.

But the key thing is that people in the west do actually realise that they have it pretty good and are very proud of it. While in Asia people are embarrassed about their situation even though they have accepted it.

Anyway, the above contained a lot of very general (and basically outrageous) statements. It was not meant to constrain anyone based on where they are from or what culture they enjoy. I was simply trying to communicate my prejudices and why I was left scratching my head at this report.

<comment><USER4> Based on your paragraph on children never seeing their fathers etc. Japan does seem terrible - perhaps Canadians, underneath all that complaining, are in fact happier; whereas Japanese don't complain but suffer silently? The scores may in fact be accurate..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There have been 2 million immigrants from Venezuela to Colombia last 4 years escaping from lack of food, money, toilet paper among many other issues but despite that this data shows Venezuela to be happier than Colombia; it doesn't add up; maybe the people wrongly assumed the quiz was a government initiative and decided to save face saying they are happy.

<comment><USER6> Tu no eres venezolano pana por eso escribes sin saber. Tipico de este sitio por cierto.

<comment><USER5> No I'm not Venezuelan, but I have talked with many and when I ask them if the situation is as bad as TV says they tell me is even worse; there isn't a single day I don't cross paths with a homeless Venezuelan asking for money here in Colombia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting that GINI coefficient doesn't seem to be correlated with happiness (except in Europe, for some reason). Reminds me of Taleb's assertion that people don't resent the rich simply for being rich, they resent rich people who have no skin in the game. Perhaps rich Europeans are perceived as having less skin in the game?

<comment><USER8> The idea that people resent inequality always seemed incredibly sketchy to me. Imagine a super-wealthy country where 99% of population has a yearly income of $200k, and the 1% has an income of $200m. This society would be very unequal, and yet somehow I can't imagine the 99% there being resentful of the rich, voting for populists etc. So, I think that people resent the rich only if they themselves are struggling to get by - but, as soon as their needs would be met, they would stop caring about other people's bank accounts.

<comment><USER9> Your example would look a bit like this:

The 1% own all of the property in the country, because their purchasing power is so enormous.

One of them earns ten times more than 99 of the others put together.

The 1% turn the screws on the 99% such that $200K actually isn't a high income any more. For example, monopolising land.

Money is just a number. What really matters is the share of resources; there's some sort of Schwarzchild radius beyond which the wealthy turn into black holes.

<comment><USER10> Isn't this essentially the case already, just that most don't get the $200k? (only partly joking).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Related, I've been fascinated by this plot of 'social thresholds achieved' at the cost of 'biophysical boundaries transgressed' \- [https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk](https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk) . I find it a more level-headed analysis to frame arguments around what resource usage it takes to be a 'happy' country, rather than just aggregating various happiness metrics alone.

"No country in the world currently meets the basic needs of its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use."

(summary article: [https://theconversation.com/is-it-possible-for-everyone- to-l...](https://theconversation.com/is-it-possible-for-everyone-to-live-a- good-life-within-our-planets-limits-91421) )

</comment><comment><USER12> Here is the full report:

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness- report/2019/WHR19.pdf](https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness- report/2019/WHR19.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER13> The visualization is good, IMHO there's a lot of room for improvement though. There's a big issue which undermines the credibility of the whole report:

\- Venezuela has a Cantril Ladder value of 6.2577.

That's very strange to say the least, and it's hard to believe to be honest. Venezuelans are one of the most unhappy, miserable people in the world.

<comment><USER13> I took a quick look at the full report (linked in the comments), and I think the data shown in the visualization might not be 100% accurate.

<comment><USER14> I think they're using data from 2008.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is this using the correct data? The happiness measure for the US of 7.28 seems to be the 2008 value. The 2018 Cantril score according to the report was 6.88.

</comment><comment><USER15> Interesting that Australia is so high up, while SE Asia so low. My experience of both (specifically Cambodia) is exactly the reverse.

But I suspect the cultural factors are at play here. Ask an Aussie if they're living the best life and they'll say yes, proud in their Lucky Country and the best beaches in the world (whichever city an Aussie inhabits has the "best beaches in the world").

While in Cambodia they're more humble. Obviously this is to certain extent about poverty. But it's also about the cultural tendency against boasting. And an acknowledgement that life isn't perfect, there are things that need to change and improve.

Yet, in my experience, obviously a limited sample of anecdata, the average Cambodian is happier, quick to find the joy in life, with strong supportive family connections. While Aussies are comparing ourselves to each other, disconnected from our families, suiciding in record numbers, and angry at the world.

<comment><USER16> I'm guessing you live in sydney :-)

<comment><USER15> Perth... but I see the same everywhere. Currently in Port Macquarie and the same strange subdued anger is here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not sure if anyone saw this...

"Is Finland Really The Happiest Country In The World? (HBO)" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FPU4F-Ajh8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FPU4F-Ajh8)

</comment><comment><USER18> There was a recent video by VICE/VOX on Finland where it was noticed that people didn't look visibly happy but were more satisfied with their life.

To that effect, I am interested to read some study on, like a satisfaction index.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://kyso.io/eoin/world-happiness-gdp-per-capita- scaled](https://kyso.io/eoin/world-happiness-gdp-per-capita-scaled)

I forked OP's study and graphed out how Happiness vs GINI looks when you scale the markers by GDP per capita, there is a clear trend of increasing happiness with increasing GINI, but it snaps back for the highest GDP per capita countries

(disclaimer - I founded Kyso - the company these studies are hosted on)

</comment><comment><USER19> I wonder in what month the survey itself was answered. Because if it was in the spring, I wouldn't be surprised if the Finns were above average happy at that time. The harsh winter will sure lead to a more extreme sine-wave like happiness pattern than in other countries.

Other problems may involve social signaling, because the Gallup world poll, on which this report is based, is conducted via telephone.

</comment><comment><USER20> Obviously the poor people in the US were too busy working multiple jobs and riding the bus to vote.

</comment><comment><USER21> I feel like I've always led myself astray trying to pursue happiness. Meaning & purpose seem to give me more "contentment" than optimizing my life for constant ecstasy-like highs.

<comment><USER22> You may be leading yourself astray by improperly defining happiness...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> we're likely all aware this is an incredibly difficult thing to quantify; indeed this represents a respectable effort.

it's not that i am not interested in raw data over interpretation. usually we don't have access to such data, or we don't know exactly what said data should be.

so this to me is a sort of data pornography that i enjoy with a grain of ky jelly.

</comment><comment><USER24> Surprising that the US consider themselves to have better social support than Canada and many other european countries.

</comment><comment><USER25> How about the hedonic trademill?

<comment><USER26> Doesn't that relate only to life changes or specific events, so that shouldn't apply no? The report looks at relatively constant factors in peoples' lives, such as social support GDP per capita, corruption, life expectancy (unless you move), etc. Maybe I'm wrong?</comment></comment>


ASK:how likely is it for a EU citizen to get a programing gig in the US? - <AUTHOR>

Let's say I am your average coder toying with the idea to move to the US. How likely am I to be considered for openings in the US and how do I maximize my chances? Are companies taking incentives from the government to hire locally? <comment><USER2> Do you have a green card? Are you legally permitted to work in the US?

If the answer is "yes", then you shouldn't have any particular problems, supposing that your skills (including English language skills) are competitive-- "any particular problems" meaning "no problems related to your EU citizenship, just the usual problems that people have trying to find jobs in a difficult market."

If the answer is "no", then you're shit out of luck. There's absolutely no way you're going to get an offer without a green card, unless your skills are absolutely stellar-- and your question refers to you as "your average coder."

<comment><AUTHOR> If I had a green card I would not be asking. I am fluent in English and probably am not exactly average, but just wanted to get a feel for it. So no company is gonna bring you in and sponsor you for a green card unless you're one of those 'rockstar' developers, is that it? I am happy where I am now, but knowing there's places I cannot move to kinda sucks.

<comment><USER2> That's right, no one is going to sponsor you and bring you in unless you've got talent they can't get domestically.

On the bright side, there's a whole lot of countries where you can go and get work-- a lot more than there are for the average USA resident. I've heard the that there's quite the scene going on in Cambridge, for instance. And, at my last start-up, here in Norway, we hired from all over Europe.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah - I know the UK is quite active at the moment. I am in Ireland at the moment and it's not too bad either. It just doesn't feel good that one cannot move around freely in the civilized world. Canada for instance appears to be much easier to get into.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Must watch:Economy Face Off: Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761/

<comment><USER2> Great interview. Whup 'em Ron!</comment>


What are WebComponents and why are they important? - <AUTHOR> http://www.revillweb.com/articles/why-web-components-are-important/

<comment><USER2> @RevillWeb

Thank you for this write up!

I've been looking for an overview of WebComponents, including a simple example and yours is the best I've seen yet.

You do state that there are three extensions (X-Tag, Polymer, & Bosonic). But then you question their interoperability. I'm definitely a newb in this area, but isn't the main selling point of WebComponents that it doesn't matter how the component itself is written (e.g., your comparison of the X-Tag component code to the Polymer component code) what matters is that each version is simply a plug and play component?</comment>


Why do projects still use mailing lists for support? - <AUTHOR>

Mailing lists seem to be less easy to navigate and search, and the hierarchy of messages is more confusing than a message board. You can't add keyword indeces, and the UI is often worse.<p>If people want a minimalist interface or an email interface to a support and discussion website, I'm sure an API could be built for an otherwise full-featured site. <comment><USER2> I hate discussion sites. I vastly prefer email where I get it all sent to me, can have it stored for easy reference, searching etc.

I would ask if you go to discussion site style, why have a site at all? Why not just have a standard tag people use on stackoverflow?

</comment><comment><USER3> W-w-what?!?? C'mon... yet one more username/password to remember, yet one more (different) set of navigation idioms (no two discussion / forum sites are layed out the same), little or no ability to view content offline, inconsistent or non-existent ability to tag / filter / route messages per my own needs... forums are a _horrible_ mechanism for support, compared to email. With email, the messages are delivered to my email client using credentials that are already configured, are available for review anywhere (once downloaded), are threaded according to well understood mechanisms, and can be filtered, tagged, sorted, etc. any way I like.

As far as I'm concerned, the question should be "why would any project _not_ use email for support?"

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough. With OAuth these days, you wouldn't need a separate username / password, but your point stands.

I do believe sites have much better mechanisms for sorting and searching compared to the web-interfaces of mailing lists.

Therefore, my next question could be, "why are mailing list web interfaces so horrendous compared to sites?"

<comment><USER3> _I do believe sites have much better mechanisms for sorting and searching compared to the web-interfaces of mailing lists._

If you're talking about using, for example, the web interface for Yahoo Groups or something, then maybe yeah. But if you're having the messages delivered to your email, and reading it with either GMail or a standalone client like Thunderbird, I think email wins on "searchability." I personally haven't found most forum sites to have terribly good search.

 _"why are mailing list web interfaces so horrendous compared to sites?"_

Good question. :-)</comment></comment></comment>


Creating a marketplace for artificial intelligence - <AUTHOR> The applications being created on the web today aren't as sophisticated as they could be, the reason being that to create something large enough to offer as a complete product requires tremendous resources. For example speech recognition is produced by only by two giant companies (Microsoft and IBM), and some level of text analysis in search engines (google, yahoo, microsoft). Computer vision is being actively pursued at large companies and yet they still cannot release a product yet.
An  alternative way would be for small companies/individuals to start producing small fragments of functionality and offering it in a per for use basis. (as in a cat recognizer in an image, or a recognizer for the word "hello" in an audiofile).
To create the above recognizer would require gathering data (such as hundreds/thousands of pictures of cats) and feeding it to a supervised learning algorithm like svm, boosting etc.
Thousands (perhaps millions) of people creating their own "classifiers" and charging for them (perhaps 1000 uses for 1 dollar) over the web might lead rapidly to seeing/thinking machines.
(A similar model can also be used to pose competition to entrenched monopoly software like mathematica/maya/autocad - thousands of people creating and charging for small bits of functionality) <comment><USER2> A bunch of classifiers is not an artificial general intelligence. A human- level mind (or beyond) requires a systematic cognitive architecture, it's not going to emerge out of a heterogenous, quasi-random soup of mind-components. This is a naive theory of cognitive science, I would argue.

For a careful, systematic design for an advanced AI system, see <http://opencog.org/wiki/OpenCogPrime>, which is associated with the open- source AI project opencog.org

Anyway, I'm probably one of the biggest optimists in the AI research community, but in my view the idea in this post represents "way over the top" optimism based on a naive view of how mind works.

Given a mature version of an AI system built according to an overall AI architecture like OpenCog, then maybe people writing little "mind modules" as you suggest could make sense. But the Internet just is not a "mind operating system."

I wrote about what would need to be done to turn the net into more of a mind- OS in my 2001 book "Creating Internet Intelligence" (Plenum Press). At the high level I don't think this is a bad idea. But again, brains are not just soups of heterogenous processes -- the right high-level cognitive architecture is required.

\-- Ben Goertzel novamente.net agiri.org singinst.org goertzel.org

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm trying to draw a parallel between how content on the web is being created and how an artificial mind might be created. If you sat down at tried to engineer a giant encyclopedia within one company/community, you would end up with britannica (within one company), and wikipedia (within a community of enthusiasts), However, the web at large is much larger than both of these because of the economic incentives for people to create articles. Many people try and fail (in effect working for free), but the progress is rapid, as in evolution. In the same way, incentivizing people to produce classifiers would have the similar effect of rapid progress.

If you think of intelligence as being the ability to predict accurately, having a giant web of classifiers that predict accurately could be construed as a form of artificial general intelligence, or a human type artificial intelligence. Having an enough data about the world, because you have created many classifiers that can recognize the semantic events in video and speech, would allow you to make all the same types of recognitions and predictions that a human would make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I disagree that creating a useful artificial intelligence product requires tremendous resources. When search engines first came into existence, a few machines for a crawl and a few machines to do basic posting-list serving were enough to have a useful product. Now it's tougher but Cuil with a dozen engineers has done a reasonable job from scratch.

The real problem is to find an application for artificial-intelligence-style programming that is actually useful. What good is classifying what's in a picture? If you could sketch out a useful product then the right small group of engineers could build it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Surveillance technology is one such application already in use (location of faces and people in images), video analytics on google. A much larger market is robotics. (Factories use robots that are custom programmed with vision for each application and don't really do recongition in the sense of object recognition in an arbitray scene). Recognizing common household objects would be useful for a company building home robots (of which there are a few) right now.

There is a recent startup doing image recognition using humans, on photos at flickr.

Search engines relied on letting a single algorithm go out and process data. There isn't yet an artificial intelligence algorithm that can just go out and do what it needs (unsupervised learning algorithm that works well). The currently available algorithms (supervised learning) require labelled data, and since there are millions of categories of things (that we as humans can percieve and so are useful to recognize), it would require at least a billion labellings of the data (1000 data labellings for each category).

The trouble with companies and groups engineers is that you would have to fund them, organize etc. and only a few groups would form (there are only an handful of video analytics companies probably, all of them probably do recognition of a handful of the same things). Besides, the system advocated above is pretty simple, hardly any engineering in the sense of specialized technical skill is required. You would just collect and feed data into the classifiers. Others would combine data from classifers into yet more classifiers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Another application is in mobile phones that recognize objects, already being done in japan for certain objects in stores. There was also an application developed for the android platform that did some type of recognization of outdoor environments.

<comment><USER3> Sounds pretty cool. So why don't you make a mobile phone app that recognizes some sort of useful object to recognize? That doesn't sound like it's too big of a project for a startup.

Even if a large company was to throw a huge amount of resources at this, they would still probably have a team of a few people make a demo first. They go through the same process as a startup in a sense, first having a few people trial and demo and if it seems good then give them more money and/or engineers.

<comment><AUTHOR> My point is about the "democratization" of classifer creation. I personally am not a programmer and don't have the talent to create a startup, and there are millions more people like me. However, if there were a place where i could feed some data and have a classifier hosted somewhere I could participate in this.

It's the same way blogs allowed many more people to start creating content on the web, whereas previously it required creating and hosting a website. Or how google app engine, might increase the creeation of web applications because previously a lot of people didn't have knowledge of administering and scaling unix/dbms based applications.

A large company would seriously have a look at roi, whereas many small entrepreneurs just have a go at it. Britannica (large company) is smaller than wikipedia (community of individuals), which is again smaller than the content on the web at large (community of incentivized small entrepreneurs).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think you're defining artificial intelligence too narrowly.

If you branch beyond the classic uses (speech, vision, text-classification) to some of the things that have been more recently branded 'Collective Intelligence', there's really a large (and quickly growing) field out there.

Bayesian filtering is standard in anti-spam solutions, recommender systems and price modelers are huge in online shopping and rental verticals, and social networks are starting to use things like clustering to connect people.

AI is making some huge advances (especially in the past 2-3 years as the 'open data' culture gains steam and the tech catches up) and I think there's a lot of room for startups in the space serving niche purposes like custom recommenders, especially when you throw data-visualization into the mix.

Examples off the top of my head include Farecast, the airline backend at ITA Software, and some of the upcoming work in the automated rss recommender area.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, they are applications of machine learning techniques and can be considered "narrow ai". What I was suggesting is more along the lines of something that can do the tasks of children, see and recongize most things, and understand language. I think one way of achieving that is by "bootstrapping" from understanding of video, If an understanding of what a human does in the video (standing, sitting, limb positions, height, facial expression) in relation to objects and other humans can be automatically inferred, a predictive model could be built with enough data of what a person in any given situation might do. Combine this with robust speech recognition and understanding of the behaviour of common objects I think you would be closer to cracking the goal of language understanding (which I think defines true human level intelligence).

<comment><USER4> And i'd go so far as to say that this wouldn't just be good business, it would revolutionize human life.

But from what little I understand of the history of AI, people have been throwing resources at this category of problem for 40+ years and made only middling progress.

Not that that means that people (especially saavy entrepeneurs) shouldn't tackle the problem, I just think that by taking the constrained view (and shooting for the moon) you'd be missing a ton of low-hanging fruit in other areas.

With the emergence of commercially viable computing on demand we're tearing down a major barrier to AI, but I think that throwing the idea out and saying 'Hey! Why don't more of us get together and tackle this problem?' betrays a bit of an underestimation of just how tough this problem is.

That said, I would love for you to prove me wrong =) And as another poster mentioned, groups in the areas of surveillance and security (where the money is, at least initially) are making good headway on the problem.

The biggest problem with building predictive models, as another poster pointed out, is feeding them tagged training data. You could really feasibly load up a database with terabytes of data for most of the stimuli people react to these days (or will be able to in the near future), and even most of the basic combinations. It's a matter of tagging and classifying them in the first place that's the problem. Maybe with enough Indians sitting in front of mechanical turk... _scrambles off to a calculator_

<comment><AUTHOR> That's exactly my initial reason for posting this. In the singulariy enthusiast community artificial intelligence is the most important thing we as humans can create (post scarcity, immortality etc).

What I was suggesting is that a "gold rush" type situation form around the building of classifiers, such as that occurred with website creation. There are millions trying to get an income onlne creating content for adsense and affilate programs (and for free with wikipedia and open source). Most will fail at generating reasonable income but in the process a large amount of wealth has been created. The same could be done for classifiers/artifical intelligence. It would require just collecting a thousand or two pieces of data (image/sudio/text) to create a classifier, an effort similar to creating a small website.

The problem is that even in the past there really wasn't a large number of people working on artificial intelligence, maybe just a few hundred or thousand, and computing power wasn't cheap enough to make it work. Computer scientists that do work on it are trying to create more unique algorithms that can be published, rather than creating applications with existing working algorithms (after all they''re paid to create new things, not simply apply what's available). In Larry Page's lecture at AAAS he mentioned that there are less than a hundred people working on artificial (general) intelligence today. (you can see it on youtube).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What platform could support this vision? Also, how will you get all these disparate classifiers to integrate and scale without getting bogged down in complexity?

btw, on the computer vision example, I believe this is what Numenta is doing to an extent.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can use open source libraries such as opencv/torch/torchvision and libraries in R for the machine learning. Haar recognizer is one such algorithm in opencv/torchvision that can locate faces in images.

As for the complexity, that's what the market would sort out. People would build on other's work, and everyone would get compensated for as much as their work is used.

Numenta is an example of the monolithic comapny doing all the work, and that's why you can't use or build on any of their technology yet (incidentally, they use bayesian type algorithms while i'm advocating easy to use standard algorithms that have many open source implementations - boosting, random forests, support vector machines, and maybe neural networks).

A startup opportunity would be for a company to host the learning algorithms, and just have people pay for and submit data from which classifiers (academic jargon for recongizers) can be built and returned. (The company would have to be trusted though as they could simply keep a copy of the created classifier and resell it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great idea. Start working on a prototype and make sure you apply in time for the winter YC session.

</comment><comment><USER7> _"... speech recognition is produced by only by two giant companies (Microsoft and IBM), ..."_

and ATT ~ <http://www.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/index.php#top>

</comment><comment><USER8> Sure it could be done, but who is going to pay for it? At $1/1000 uses you won't even be able to cover your hosting fees.

<comment><AUTHOR> At 30 frames per second you would start to earn dollars in just a few minutes of video. The price of 1 dollar per thousand would actually be too high for most applications - there might be thousands of object recognizers applied to each image.

<comment><AUTHOR> A recongition task would take at most a second, to earn 100 dollars would require a little over a day of computing at that rate.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Tyranotext - create simple interactive SMS apps - <AUTHOR> http://tyranotext.com

<comment><AUTHOR> This is just a weekend project that I built. I work at Twilio, and this comes in handy for little SMS apps I need to build for work all the time. I have a lot of ideas of where I want to take this, and a bunch of layout/copywriting changes I want to make. With that said, I'm pleased with it for as first iteration.

</comment><comment><USER2> The first thing that comes to mind is that I'd want to be able to make the replies more dynamic. Maybe a model like Yahoo! Pipes (does that still exist?) where I could build a dictionary app, or a weather app, or anything like that. Though I understand that wasn't your initial goal with that and that it's not an easy task :)

As far as the page goes, I could use an example I think.

One thing that might be useful to some would be to have a static URL for the app, so that you can change the app without changing the URL in your Twilio settings. (right now, the app lives in the URL)

And I would add a link to the Twilio settings page next to the URL at the bottom of the page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Tim. These are good tips. I'll hit you up later for more ideas.

<comment><USER2> No problem Daniel. Doing my best to make you look awesome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> As a first-time user, it would be helpful to see some examples of certain keywords and SMS responses. That way, I can see how the service worked for someone and that would give me a sense for how it can work for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely. That's a good suggestion. I'll try to figure out a good way to add those in somewhere. There's a lot of work to be done. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can confirm this works great, just tried it. nice app Daniel. One suggestion: maybe put that final url inside a textfield or textbox as mine got a little unruly in length.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I was working on that last night before I crashed and went to bed. Definitely a good suggestion. I have a few ideas for which you wouldn't even need to use the URL at all... Wait and see. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Daniel Zarick is amazing.</comment>


Loveopolis.com - The first truly "social" dating site. Would "love" feedback. - <AUTHOR> http://loveopolis.com/ Loveopolis was created to help people meet and connect online. We found that there wasn't a way to truly give people an interactive and social experience when it came to finding love...so we decided to build one. <comment><USER2> It sounds too public. What if I would prefer to date without everyone in the world knowing everything about me & my dating life???

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a great question. No one can view your information unless you explicitly become friends with them. And only your "Inner Circle" has advanced access to see all of your information.

Also, we never post any of your information to any social network, we only consume it to make your experience the best one possible.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Loveopolis was created to help people meet and connect online. We found that there wasn't a way to truly give people an interactive and social experience when it came to finding love...so we decided to build one.</comment>


Will London monetise Metro passengers mobility data - <AUTHOR> https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/10/02/023249/will-london-monetize-wifi-tracking-data-from-its-tube-passengers?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed <comment><USER2> Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15382274](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15382274)

There are a number of other submissions of this story, but the titles vary wildly and I haven't been able to find any other significant discussion.</comment>


White House looks to robotics for economic future - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/silicon-valley-robotics/white-house-economic-report-looks-to-robotics-for-the-future-429d66a6593#.sc1xco8vg <comment><AUTHOR> Focus is on two technologies - robotics and the internet - to drive future productivity, innovation and labor growth.</comment>


BBC to beam general election results on to Big Ben - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8656578.stm <comment><USER2> It's only a matter of time until they all start in Number 10, with Cameras setup inside etc, televised 24/7, and the public vote them out one by one until the winner remains.

</comment><comment><USER3> That is one really cool idea, i wish there was more visualizations like that. reminds me of the guerrilla projector art that some people have been doing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Am I the only one that was wondering what Roethlisberger was doing in the UK?</comment>


Leaked Documents Confirm Android 5.0 Key Lime Pie Launch This Spring - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5980917/report-leaked-documents-confirm-totally-obvious-non+surprise-android-key-lime-pie-launch-this-spring

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/01/30/post-removed-2/> This says: "The information previously posted at this URL contained Qualcomm confidential and copyrighted information that was posted without Qualcomm's authorization. It has been removed at Qualcomm's request. Please immediately destroy any copies that you may have made of this information."</comment>


In Data We Trust: Max Levchin on Consumer Finance - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mixpanel.com/2016/05/11/max-levchin-rethinks-consumer-finance/ <comment><USER2> > These kinds of comparisons depend on jargon like "APR" and numbers with > multiple asterisks.

Knowing what APR stands for is pretty basic stuff. The author admits a few sentences later that she had to Google it. Are they patronizing their readers, or is she really that ignorant of how loans work?

<comment><USER3> Yes most peaple are ignorant about basic finance. That is where 'cheap and fast' loans companies get their money from

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _> "Silicon Valley's as successful as it is because we're constantly blowing up whatever came before us, ripping it all down and building it back from scratch."_

s/"Silicon Valley"/"Wall Street"/</comment>


Why Google Should Buy LinkedIn, Now Before It's Too Late - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/05/03/businessinsider-why-google-should-buy-linkedin-2011-5.DTL

<comment><USER2> To me, "winning" in social sounds a lot like "winning" the war on drugs. It's a struggle for a concept, not a tangible objective.

Like most hyped tech, there's genuine value to social strategy. However, Google's core business - providing an information index - will be valuable with or without one.

</comment><comment><USER3> It is unclear why one would want to encourage more monopolies on networking and identity data. Let's keep those separate.

</comment><comment><USER4> I was kinda wondering about the "too late", turns out it means "before they go public", which is too late in the "more expensive, less control" meaning.

As for the "should", they really don't. They could launch they're own LinkedIn-like service, or buy them, or do a different social network, or not. The article keeps hammering that Google have to "win in social". They don't, because, unlike search, there is no, currently, a good way to secure a major share of the market, which is what I'm guessing they mean by "win", because "social" is a bubble, not a real market.

This bubble will burst, sooner or later, and the less Google blows on "social", the better they'll come out of it.

<comment><USER5> Yes the bubble will burst. Just like the dot com bubble did. That does not mean that dot com is is dead.

I am not sure but I do think that Google has to at least make some sort of dent in the curation space.

Personally I am using google less and less because I end up with search results that are based on how well google was gamed rather than on the value of the content.

It's very hard to do algorithmic work that can't be gamed and thus the question at least to me is whether curation by humans will end up winning over recommendation by machines.

<comment><USER4> Google's already _in_ that space, they are so ubiquitous with almost anything. Take Google analytics, that's in probably 50% of the web. Google search is default in any browser that is not IE. Take gmail, Google calendar, Google docs, the level of human interaction that is made through their servers is second to none. They just don't have a major stake in "social", but they do, through search, through crawling, etc. And with the current privacy and sharing status (that is, lack of), they have a lot of access to a lot of user details.

The only thing a social network has over Google is the ability to perform application-level data cross-referencing, and Google wants a hold in that. Probably before the bubble bursts and those details get lost, or sold, or leaked, or whatever.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that the qualification of search results are not based on human interaction or curation but on optimizing for google accessibility. That creates a very very different landscape.

It's not the details that's important it's the sentiment and opinion around the details that's important and that google haven't solved yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting. LinkedIn and Google actually seem like a good fit, now that I think about it:

Facebook = Fun

Google = Work/education/information

LinkedIn = Work

These are obviously generalizations, but they hold up. After all, I'd be pretty upset if Google ever bought Facebook. But Google buying LinkedIn? It makes me think "yeah, sure, that's an excellent way to make LinkedIn even better for me".

</comment><comment><USER7> Isn't LinkedIn rather in the category of MySpace, that is, social networks of the past?

<comment><USER8> It's just a parallel social network.

OTOH, if Facebook chose to, they could really hurt LinkedIn by leveraging their existing network. Just expand the jobs part of the profile to support resumes and such, add support for job relationships similar to family relationships, and provide default privacy settings for "colleagues" rather than "friends". Sell access to a back-end search limited to the jobs section, and LinkedIn starts running scared.

<comment><USER9> I hear this a lot and in my opinion, a sizable minority of people can't mix their social and professional networks together. I can't have my business clients see who I'm currently dating or pictures from my nephew's bar mitzvah. Not only is it unprofessional, but it can harm my future dealings with them.

I know a lot of people have on Facebook have accepted invites from their boss or professional contacts and they stop participating in it as a social network and start using it as a glorified email/im system. If everyone did this, it would harm Facebook's ecosystem in the long run.

Even with privacy controls and grouping people together, keeping mental context about who can see what at any given time is just too hard for most people. Seeing facebook.com and thinking social and linkedin.com and thinking professional is far easier.

* Disclaimer - I used to work for LinkedIn in analytics as a product manager and did a lot of user interviews, but I may have drank the kool-aid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> That would make a lot of sense. Both companies hold similar contact data (GMail contacts vs LinkedIn). There are many similar use cases between the two. Is this just speculation?</comment>


The Green Bubble will not be like our Last Bubbles - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-green-bubble-will-not-be-like-our-last-bubbles-2009-3

<comment><USER2> I'll be honest, I can get the marketing side of the green argument. But, it seems to be crazy how much emphasis there is on "greening".

I can see an argument where there is a real value proposition, for example, solar panels in Arizona, Southern California, or Colorado, places with above average sunlight. Water optimization in LA (not in Oregon).

But, when you have people in Virginia i.e. (<http://tjspi.110mb.com/press20082404.php>) trying to put solar panels on top of a school, in a region that is incredibly hazy during the summer (the time where electrical energy could do the most good by balancing peak load). It just seems to me that eventually the money for these sort of unsustainable --- well intentioned investments in green technology will go away.

I.e. it appears there is a lot of hype, and a lot less real substantial progress. Obama's new green jobs, are only really beneficial to the economy if they actual reduce our dependence on foreign oil (we are the larges consumer of oil in the world) at the same rate that china increases it's need for oil, so that the price of oil stays high even if the US isn't buying it. And in terms of beneficial to the environment --- we all live on the same planet --- and that's a worldwide problem to solve.</comment>


The life-changing love of Paul Dirac (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/the-life-changing-love-of-one-of-the-20th-centurys-greatest-physicists-51229 <comment><USER2> That's a touching story, and it illustrates something I've been thinking about recently: that we're not as "rational" as we think we are, to a certain extent, because all of our current rationality depends on everything that has happened, not everything that will happen in the future.

Paul Dirac, an absolutely brilliant man, decided early on that his life "was mainly concerned with facts and not feelings." In a sense he planned his life out with imperfect information--as we all do--until something came along and completely turned his life around, in this case his future wife.

I think that's a hopeful message? That your life and your thoughts are limited by all that has happened to you, not by what hasn't happened to you yet, by definition, because you can't imagine a future that hasn't happened to you. I know, anecdotally, a handful of people who swore off marriage in their 20s, only to turn right around and get married in their 30s after meeting somebody who changed their minds. The same is true for academics and, really, everything--a student who resigns himself to hating math until he finds a teacher who understands his feelings, etc.

Or maybe it's late and I'm rambling. Either way, I really enjoyed reading this essay.

<comment><USER3> That's not rambling at all. No matter what you believe about humans -- that we have a soul or we are (just) very complex biological machinery, in the end, everything scientists do, do for human kind.

High achieving scientists tend to start by focusing on logic and "reason", and that's why they become high achieving.

But there is no reason not to explore our humanness later in life.

Even if MBTI is regarded as pseudoscience, as an INTJ, I know that later in life I must explore and improve my not so developed soft skills, and it only feels natural.

<comment><USER4> I, and everyone I know, have found the enneagram to be much more predictive and comprehensive of people's behaviour and how they think. (And much more helpful too)

[https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/test](https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/test)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/dc4g4i/a_compreh...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/dc4g4i/a_comprehensive_guide_to_all_things_enneagram/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like a graph of the quality of his relationships with other human beings would have a spike at only one point and zero everywhere else...

<comment><USER6> Just in case anyone didn't get the joke:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> :o the original Manci Pixie Dream girl

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic_Pixie_Dream_Girl](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic_Pixie_Dream_Girl)

<comment><USER8> That seems a bit disrespectul as a summary, even though I have to grudgingly admit that it's not wrong... It would have been nice for the article to say more about the woman, which would have mostly avoided the cliché!

<comment><USER9> But the whole article is a cliché!

The socially incompetent techie who is rescued by love from his rationality.

I dont wanna guess how many readers here secretly hope for this event to occur at some point. Like in the story, ideally they'd not even have to court the woman. She would just appear and take care of them. Cliché!

<comment><USER10> It does echo a bad Nicholas Sparks novel (they're all bad). But when the cliché is writ large in real life, it's touching, no? Secretly hoping for _something_ to magically rescue us from the emotional difficulties of our lives ... of course. Likelihood of it happening: (1.0 e -42).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you want to learn a bit more about Dirac's life, I really recommend reading "The Strangest Man" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strangest_Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strangest_Man)

</comment><comment><USER12> > After returning from a visit with her in Budapest, Dirac wrote, "I felt very > sad leaving you and still feel that I miss you very much. I do not > understand why this should be, as I do not usually miss people when I leave > them."

This line is like something out of a movie.

</comment><comment><USER13> Dirac used to introduce her as "Wigner's sister" rather than "my wife".

</comment><comment><USER14> why should someone be 'less than fully human' if they dont have 'feelings', particularly of the romantic kind.

we accept people of different sexual orientations. we should accept people of all emotional orientations too.

<comment><USER15> Agreed in principle, but even Dirac felt his life was richer for it.

"Feelings" are part of the human condition. They're worth some work.

<comment><USER14> 'even Dirac': just a human. one human is not superior to another.

people say things - even in their autobiographies - that they dont fully subscribe to. they worry about how they will be perceived for their true feelings.

<comment><USER15> Perhaps. But second-guessing people's statements based on what you imagine their inner thoughts are is a risky venture at best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I listened to a very good 'In Our Time' podcast episode about Paul Dirac recently: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fw0p](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fw0p)

</comment><comment><USER17> He said quite a few words in succession on religion. Somehow most of a century later, the intelligentsia persists in claiming that views such as these (i.e. those also of Dawkins et al.) are somehow "childish" or "culturally illiterate".

 _I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can 't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins._

</comment><comment><USER18> His father caused his "lack of desire to speak" by beating him for each speaking error while he was a child.

Dirac solved this error as best as a child could: by not speaking. This trauma lasted to his death.

Someone will now say "citation needed", and to those people I give these 2 books to read and what I wrote above will become as clear as day.

Alice Miller: The Drama of the Gifted Child

Alice Miller: The Body Never Lies

</comment><comment><USER19> One of my hobbies is reading (and writing, one day) short romance stories, another one is reading factoids about distinguished people, specially scientists. I was grinning like a fool through most of this article.

I like this because it generally asserts that anyone, even someone as apparently closed off as Dirac, can find love and/or happiness.

</comment><comment><USER20> Dirac himself told the reason of why he didn't talk much differently:

Wigner:

How much did you talk to your parents?

Dirac:

Very little. My father made the rule that I should only talk to him in French. He thought it would be good for me to learn French in that way. Since I found that I couldn't express myself in French, it was better for me to stay silent than to talk in English.

Source: [https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr- library/oral...](https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral- histories/4575-1)

</comment><comment><USER21> Perhaps his human side was suppressed.

People with high IQs, who win Nobel prizes are more complex than the average joe. Their motivations, inspirations and behaviour, perhaps, needs a different perspective than normal analysis.

Its a wonderful article, but seems to suggest that his human nature was non existant, rather than hidden. This I find is unbelievable. Perhaps he never had a chance to truly explore his human side, mainly because those who tried to make him explore were not patient nor persistant.

</comment><comment><USER22> > _Dirac pondered this for some minutes before responding, "But Heisenberg, > how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?"_

<comment><USER23> Perhaps Heisenberg was willing to accept some... _uncertainty_ in his life?

<comment><USER24> Indeed, he probably did not live strictly by principle as we imagine

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Interesting article. Title needs (2015).

</comment><comment><USER15> This is really sweet.

Not much to say... Life is meant to be lived. Don't forget to live it.

</comment><comment><USER26> > "A single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."

I don't understand how this is supposed to be some kind of heart warming story. I mean.... maybe it was something nice for Dirac, but it sounds as much like a ruthless sociopath hunting a the man down like a zebra on the Serengeti plain. I guess there were kids at least! But otherwise there's no indication Dirac ... was any more (or to be fair less) happy afterwords.

</comment><comment><USER27> Curiously, nothing is said about how this 'life-changing' love actually changed his life and work.

<comment><USER28> You seem to have somehow missed the part where he dicovered a new outlook and gained the ability to feel.

<comment><USER27> Yeah sure. But how about, did he do any more physics? The guy was defined by that. If he lost anything there, it would be more significant to history. But nothing mentioned.

<comment><USER29> Considering that we do not have the ability to walk down the alternative path where they did not meet, it is impossible to know whether it was a bonus or impediment to his scientific work.

As opposed to Erdős, where we know what happened when he kicked speed for a month.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> From the title I thought I'd be R. Feynman.

<comment><USER31> The story also suits the Sheldon character from the Big Bang Theory serial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It is really wonderful when you get to know someone and they show you a whole new part of life you hadn't experienced before. I think it's a big mistake to close off the possibility of such things ("my life is about facts not feelings"), but then again I have no Nobel prizes to my name.</comment>


Sorry, No Calls - <AUTHOR> http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/92302/Sorry-No-Calls.aspx

<comment><USER2> Judging by the comments - I must be the only one who feels that you can get more done in a phone call than by email. Something that can take 30 minutes to do back and forth by email or IM (usually longer, since it is asynchronous), can be resolved by a quick 2-3 minute phone call.

The back and forth required to flesh out requirements and ideas just takes too long to express well in an email.

And the small talk? A small price to pay for having all of your questions answered in a timely manner. Plus, it gets me better at interacting with people, which is always a winning proposition.

<comment><USER3> I've never, ever, ever had a 2-3 minute phone call. In any business call, that's just the small talk. Usually you spend the first 5 chatting, then 5 talking about the subject matter and then 10 trying to explain or clarifying details.

Saying goodbye and hanging up is another thing we introverts are terrible at too.

<comment><USER4> Your forgot the 7-10 minutes waiting for one of the invitees to join the call. And the occasional feedback/echo loop followed by elaborate ad-hoc algorithms to try to find the receiver at fault.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Aside from it being the most counter-productive form of communication ever, I see it as a measure of covering one's inability/unwillingness to explicitely put up in writing what they really want to say. Why can't you take 15minutes to think over and write your request? Why _both of us_ have to waste an hour to talk over stuff that can be written in 15mins and read in 5?

<comment><USER6> > Aside from it being the most counter-productive form of communication ever

That's a ridiculous statement. Some people can better articulate their thoughts if they speak it out loud, and some people can better articulate their thoughts if they write them out. Calling it an "inability" and "unwillingness" is just inconsiderate and stupid.

<comment><USER7> What matters is not whether someone can better articulate his thoughts when he speaks loud. What mattes is whether his recipient will better understand that someone.

If you need to talk loud to articulate your thoughts then place a teddy bear on your desk and speak to him as you are writing email to those who prefer emails.

Personally I hate listening to "oh" and "um" as the person who just called me tries to decide what he wanted to tell me.

<comment><USER8> And some people hate the stifled feel of email exchanges. Vice and writing are nearly fundamentally different ways of communicating, and the difference is not just the physical medium. I've done interviews by email and interviews by voice (and transcribed afterwards)...it's a different flow of discussion

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think that learning to talk to humans is a valuable skill.

<comment><USER5> give me your number so we can talk about it.

<comment><USER9> I emailed you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My company actually uses this to determine which clients we work with. If the first email we get is a call request, then we politely decline to work with them.

In our experience, having a 'quick chat' rarely if ever leads to business. Most people know what they want already and don't need a call to confirm and/or waste each other's time.

<comment><USER11> I love that idea.

As an occasional angel investor, I actually use a variation of that filter as well. Out of politeness, entrepreneurs will offer to have a call with me to talk me through their business. I tell them no call is necessary, they have better things to do with their time. If someone insists on a phone call without at least trying to see if we can accomplish what's needed over email, it's a no go for me.

Thankfully, just about every early-stage entrepreneur I've encountered has no issues with this approach. They prefer it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's a danger to elevate inability to communicate by phone (or face-to- face) into some kind of geek badge of honor. If you can run your business that way that's good for you but it's important to keep in mind that there are some potential clients, customers or partners that do better with phone conversations.

It's not always the inability to put things in writing or plain lazyness that makes some people pick up the phone instead of firing off an email or text. Some people's brains have an easier time developing ideas in a conversation and you may miss out on valuable opportunities if you dismiss them. You could hire or partner up with someone who likes to chat.

<comment><USER13> Hmm, not sure why you conflate face-to-face and phone. I prefer to not talk over the phone, but have absolutely no problem talking face to face. Just thought I'd throw that out for the record. :)

<comment><USER14> Same thing here, I absolutely hate talking on the phone, to the point of getting anxious when I know I am due to receive a call at any moment. However, meeting in person is probably the most pain-free type of communication for me - it even beats email because you can gauge exactly how the other person is taking in what you are saying.

That's why video-chat programs like Skype help immensely with my phone anxiety.

So no need to assume that those who despise the phone also dislike face-to- face interactions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> To each their own, but I would never want to work with someone who could not engage in small talk. We are a gregarious species, and there is so much more communicated between the stories, stupid jokes, and general banter (non- verbal)

This post reads more like a personal observation of social anxiety and the maladaptive behaviors borne of it.

I actually feel sorry for him because something so human and natural causes so much anxiety.

<comment><USER16> Or perhaps he hates engage in small-talk over the phone, instead of face-to- face. Or maybe he doesn't like to engage in chitchat with just about anyone and reserves that for friends and family. Or we could judge him as a pathetic guy who merely airs his maladaptive behaviors on the Web.

<comment><USER11> Oddly, I enjoy small talk in person in very small groups, but hate small talk at "networking" events (like a cocktail party). It's all about the context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I strongly prefer conducting most of my professional communications over email for most of the reasons listed. Unfortunately, the rest of the world does not work that way--particularly in the realm of B2B sales.

I respect Dharmesh enormously. I am nowhere near his level of anything, and no one has any reason to listen to me, but I still have to say it: if you want to make money running your own business and can't afford to hire a salesperson, unless you have a uniquely geeky clientelle you need to learn to talk on the phone. Furthermore, _learn to enjoy it_. It's very doable, even for introverts like us.

(FWIW, I strongly suspect that Dharmesh is very good at talking on the phone, even if he hates it, both because I've seen his BoS videos and because it is extremely rare for people to succeed in the way he has without being excellent verbal communicators. He'd be better at it if he got past his mental block, but he doesn't need to because he has hired an excellent sales team.)

<comment><USER18> * Unfortunately, the rest of the world does not work that way--particularly in the realm of B2B sales.*

Also "disruptive" startups that enter other realms are going to have problems if they are adverse to phone communications. For example, if you want to do a food startup and work with farms, you are probably going to need to hire an old-school phone-loving sales person to help you if you are adverse to phones because many farmers are pretty much the opposite of this article. No call, no business for a lot of them. Many don't communicate by email at all. It is very frustrating for those of us used to working in tech, but that's how it is right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I changed something in my behavior about a year or so ago, I started answering every call. I put a phone number a huge one on my website and started answering and listening to my customers. It has been life changing, we know what our customers like, we know what they don't like. We're excited to hear and help them in realtime. Our customers love that we answer the phone. We also do email and live chat, but for many the phone is great. I used to suck at the phone and definitely I still have my moments. In general, I've learned how to end the bad calls quickly - or correctly in that a bad call can be your best call. When you can help a customer stay a customer, you can really do this best over the phone. I think generally, this author isn't into customers, but IMO if you're into software you have to be into customers - they are your life blood - love them :D

</comment><comment><USER20> IMO, saying "I do not communicate that way, sorry" on an initial contact request is a little douchebaggy (key sentence is "on an initial contact").

I much rather prefer: "I'll make time for a quick phone call, but I only have X minutes for it." (5 minutes? Does not have to be a long time). Stick with the time limit.

The first thing to say in the phone call is "This may be the last phone call we have because [...]". That's better than coming off as some eccentric whose most memorable quality is that he does not do phone calls. As opposed to whatever you want the most-remembered thing about you is.

Just an opinion.

<comment><USER11> I'm the author of the article. I prefer the term "schmucky" (instead of "douchebaggy").

In theory, I think you're right. In practice, just the thought of trying to do what you are suggesting sounds awfully unpleasant -- even more unpleasant than actually taking the call.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, could not find a better term at the time, sorry...

But yeah, It's all subjective.

I think though, that setting a time limit as the first thing in the call is far better than saying "I must go in two minutes" in the middle of a call. At least the other party knows their time is limited.

But like I said, it's subjective and you certainly have a right to handle it as you wish :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wonder (sincerely), do the posters who prefer email to a phone call really find other people's writing easy to understand? I love my own emails: they're great and unambiguous and filled with insightful nuance, but half the time I receive an email from someone else I can't figure out exactly what they want, so we have to reply back and forth to clarify things or just pick up the phone and talk.

And vice versa. They love their own emails too.

<comment><USER22> You make me realize that with people who can write well, I'll lean towards preferring email communication, with those who can't, I'll prefer phone. And by "write well" I don't mean having perfect grammar or spelling. I mean having clarity of thought, delivering a clear progression of ideas, and being concise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Dharmesh classifies himself as a "complete introvert". And his behavior with respect to phones is consistent with that. But I find it hard to believe that he has gotten to where he is today by taking this kind of hardline attitude w/all the ways that his introversion manifests itself (it makes me anxious, therefore I won't do it, sorry). I'm pretty sure that all the public speaking that he does makes him nervous as hell (he usually begins his talks by admitting that), but he does it anyway.

As a fellow introvert, I am constantly trying to decide when to push myself out of my comfort zone (because it would be good for my career), and when I should just accept the way that I am and seek to add value in ways that I am most comfortable.

I'd love to see Dharmesh write about how he came to the decision of where to draw that line; e.g. phone calls are out, but public speaking is in. A takeaway from this article could be "don't try to be something you're not", but I feel that its a bit more complicated than that based on what I (think I) know about him.

<comment><USER24> It's not taking a hardline attitude. If you have, for example, Aspergers, unplanned, unscheduled conversations cause incredible anxiety and are extremely hard to manage. This leads to miscommunication, arguments and pointless stress. And there's no "taking myself out of my comfort zone" that would help, I'm already out of my comfort zone whenever I talk live to someone who isn't one of the half dozen closest people in my life. And even with them it gets tricky sometimes.

As for public speaking, it's actually a fairly scripted and controlled situation. A good middle-ground would probably be something like leading a table-top RPG game, though for me that's already in the realms of fantasies, and I'm pretty sure I'm doing pretty well all things considered.

Anyway, the point is: some of us have our special needs. Some people need extra control over conversations due to their inherent vulnerability. It's not just introversion, it's often anxieties and social disorders. I'm still a pretty great coder that can get along with a team of living, breathing people, and deal with a stand-up every day, but an unannounced meeting — not so much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Interesting discussion in that site's comments over whether or not the author's use of The Oatmeal's comic images are fair use or not.

<comment><USER11> Indeed, I'm feeling badly about it. (I'm the author of the article)

Have reached out to Matt at The Oatmeal offering to donate $500 to his favorite charity -- but I'm open to do doing whatever he thinks is right.

Although it doesn't excuse it -- I did link to the original comic, mentioned Matt and The Oatmeal by name, and linked EVERY individual image back to the original comic. I didn't mean to not give credit for the original work.

<comment><USER7> I think you shouldn't beat yourself up about it. IMHO you did everything right and some people are just too sensitive.

What's your favorite culture good for if you can't cite it as you make a point.

People tend to get picky over everything when they strongly disagree with you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The article and the Oatmeal comic seem to apply to people you don't like much - people you don't really want to talk with by any means.

I also bristle at business calls, or calls from anyone I don't adore.

But _because_ I'm an introvert, I love the phone for some real good undistracted one-on-one conversation with dear friends.

I prefer phone to hanging out in-person. I have a social window of about an hour where I'm into it, then my tolerance fades fast. When you're on the phone, an hour is a good long conversation. But in-person, an hour is so short, it rarely feels worth the travel time.

My best friends are in London, Minnesota, Singapore, LA, SF, Portland, NYC, Texas, Taiwan, and New Zealand. (I move around a lot. And many of my friends are touring musicians.) Phone is the only way we keep in touch. The best, deepest, most life-changing conversations I've had are by phone.

I think it's because I'm an introvert, and like low-stimulation environments, that the phone keeps everything focused on the conversation itself.

</comment><comment><USER27> I do everything that I can to avoid phone calls. As a developer, the interruption to flow is the biggest deal for me.

</comment><comment><USER6> As a writer I also prefer to communicate by email. I used to be very socially awkward and introverted (and still am), but knowing how to communicate in a wide variety of situations, whether it be by text, email, phone or in person is an extremely important skill to learn, _especially_ if you're in a field like software development or engineering.

1) I can relate to this first point, but at the same time it isn't like it's impossible to have long or in-depth conversations on the phone. If you find phone calls at random times distracting just set a time and date, or tell them to call you back later. Also, in this day and age phones that support voicemail are everywhere; if they leave you a message you can think of a reply for a couple of hours and then call them back when you're ready.

2) Things like small talk don't have to be awkward. I'll agree that most small talk feels "fake," but that's because it's used to assess your mood. You don't have to pretend to be interested in the weather on Saturday or that baseball game last night. Making small talk is a difficult skill to learn, but again, you don't actually have to care or devote and thought to it. Asking how your day has been going is just common courtesy.

I'm not going to address the rest of his points as they're personal problems, but if you limit yourself to one form of communication you're going to limit yourself in a bunch of other ways, too.

</comment><comment><USER28> Burnt down with stress and overworking, I was looking for ways to cut down on my busy schedule. For last 4 months, I have implemented the "No Calls" policy for all work-related conversations. I just stopped picking calls if it wasn't from my family or a few friends. First few days it was tough to keep myself away from the mobile as every ring on that cuboid would race up my heart with nervous tension. But it subsided eventually. I have to agree that it has made my quality of life better.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm surprised at the number of people here who say that email is a more effective form of communication.

To me I've seen way too many email chains deteriorate to the point where someone finally steps up and says let's have a call to hash this out.

Conversely I've never once been on a call where someone has said, you know what? This would be solved quicker and better via email.

If I need something done quickly then I always call. Email can be put off way too easily.

<comment><USER30> Actually, I do that all the time (tell people it will be easier to do this via email). Most of my calls are support, and it's generally MUCH quicker and more efficient doing it via email than over the phone.

I actually removed the phone number from our website 6 months ago and we just have email sales/support now. If someone prefers to talk on the phone (or in the rare case where it would be more efficient to do a phone call), I just call them back.

The problem is that I'm thinking we might be losing some customers who prefer to see a phone number they can call, so I'm considering putting our phone number back on the website. I just wish I could educate people to consider sending a 30 second email versus having a 30 minute phone call to sort out problems...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This post summed up my feeling exactly as it pertains to phones. I spend at least 30 minutes before a scheduled call nervously glancing at the time, mentally preparing myself for the interaction.

Extroverts don't have the capability to understand introversion, as we don't understand them. This is just a simple fact of life.

</comment><comment><USER31> I wonder if part of the dislike of the phone is related to the proliferation of the notion that cell phones work as well as land lines. I find the half duplex way a cell phone works very annoying and it often causes the awkwardness when both parties think they should start talking.

<comment><USER22> I looked up "half duplex" out of interest, and it fit closely enough what I imagined it meant. But the first article I found says that cell phones are full duplex. However I've found they have a threshhold volume under which they don't send any signal to the other party, so perhaps that can make it feel like half duplex. Am I misunderstanding this?

Link: <http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone1.htm>

<comment><USER31> I think you are right. During my search prompted by your question I also found many complaints about phones acting as if they are half duplex though. Variously attributed to echo cancellation, low quality phones, low quality service, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Writing is certainly my preferred mode of communication. I believe I am able to most clearly express myself through writing – so this typically means email. I use it whenever I have the option.

I am not as comfortable communicating through conversation. I know people who are extraordinary conversationalists. And I don't mean talkative. I am impressed by those who can jump into a conversation and express exactly what they want without having to collect and organize their thoughts, particularly in the give-and-take flow of a conversation.

I know not everyone is like me, so I try to be flexible and accommodating to provide a comfortable platform for the other person if a phone call seems more appropriate. And sometimes a phone call is necessary.

</comment><comment><USER33> And yet to get signed up with Hubspot seems to require phone calls?

<comment><USER34> Fine, they can talk to whoever answers the pay phone at the bus station, just like anyone else who asks for my phone number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I can't believe how much that post resonated with me. Strangely though, I consider myself at least somewhat an extrovert; I just can't seem to master phone call etiquette.

</comment><comment><USER36> As a note, this is arguing from a position of power. Some people appear to be generally incapable of textual communication; if they don't get to call you or meeting you face to face, they aren't interested in dealing with you.

edit: I'd rather use textual communication; I feel its more precise, more document-able, and you have chance to really think about what you're saying. Of course I _can_ deal with other communication modalities, but... eh. Not as optimal IMO. :-)

</comment><comment><USER37> I am an introvert, but have forced myself to embrace and even love picking up the phone. There is no better way to get a message across than to talk to someone (even better in person). What's even better is that you recount the conversation, action items, points taken away after the call with an email. This combination has worked beautifully for me, and I highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER38> A little tangential, but it's interesting the extent to which phone communication has dropped in my life. The phone on my office desk sits unused in the corner, covered with dust. For personal calls, I'm down to a perhaps 2-3 a week, total; for everything else, text/email/fb is more convenient. Now, I mostly view voice calls as an annoyance and I sympathize with the article.

<comment><USER39> I work for a somewhat hip company and we don't even have phones (other than for the support personel) -- why would we?

<comment><USER40> At companies that are silly enough to give me a phone, I've found that the main people calling me on it are recruiters trying to hire me away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Maybe I'll be in the minority here, but these are all problems with YOU, not with the telephone. Observe:

> 1\. I don't like synchronous communications. Ok, sure, if you're "in the > zone" or something, just turn off your phone until you're done. Sometimes > doing your job means responding to things synchronously. I don't think > there's any careers out there that involve 8 hours of sitting in your cube > uninterrupted.

> 2\. I hate making small talk.

Boo fucking hoo. You have to express an interest in another human being's life for 5 minutes. Cry me a river. You're an introvert? So what? That doesn't give you a free pass to forgo all human interaction.

> 3\. I have a really hard time saying "no".

Grow a pair. It's one little syllable. "no". Practice it in front of the mirror if you have to.

> 4\. I'm pathologically polite, and just can't get the timing right.

Talking to people is like any other skill. If you practice it, you'll get better at it. Maybe if you didn't avoid talking on the phone at all costs, you'd improve.

> 5\. I'm absolutely terrible at ending a call.

Again, grow a pair. "Well, it's been great talking to you, but I have some work I have to get back to. Goodbye" It's not that difficult.

I'm as introverted as the next guy. I hate talking on the phone too, but as an adult in a business environment, sometimes you have to. You can spend some time developing a valuable skill, or you can whine about it on the Internet.

<comment><USER42> > Boo fucking hoo.

> Grow a pair.

> Cry me a river.

> So what?

> Again, grow a pair.

> whine about it on the internet

Knock that right off, please, and do it right now.

<comment><USER41> Well, I've finished typing the post and submitted it, so that activity has been effectively knocked off. Do you have a particular objection you'd care to enumerate or do you just generally feel you have the right to tell people not to post anymore?

<comment><USER42> Right there in the very first line of what you should not do here in comments, is a description of what you're doing here. In spades.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

<comment><USER41> I think you're being over sensitive. This is nothing I wouldn't say in person to anyone displaying the level of solipsism in this post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Great post. I wasn't aware some people had such an aversion to phone conversations. As for the argument email is more efficient, I don't buy it. Both email and phone are tools that can become highly efficient or huge time wasters dependent on how you use them. Really liked your advice on not making buying decisions over the phone. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER7> I have a friend who answers calls but openly warns his interlocutors that if they want him to do something they'll have to send him an email because he will most likely forget almost all of what was said (which is true).

</comment><comment><USER44> sounds a lot like tim ferris

<comment><USER11> Really? I had no idea Tim was an introvert. For some reason, he comes off as a complete extrovert.

<comment><USER45> I think the policy is similar but the reasoning is different. His is, IIRC, closer to "phone calls are not the most efficient use of my time; I prioritize efficiency very highly; you will deal." It is similar to e.g. a standing policy to tell employees "If you require any decision from me regarding an issue where you could resolve the issue yourself for under $100, resolve the issue and add it to a spreadsheet. I will periodically have someone review that spreadsheet. Rationale: These issues do not require my input to be resolved to the benefit of the business, some more pressing issues do, accordingly, we optimize me out of this process."</comment></comment></comment>


Byron Reese, of Demand Media fame, is up to something - <AUTHOR> http://byronreese.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry that the title does match the page's title, but I wanted to indicate why the website is of interest.</comment>