A fight between Geeks - how to resolve this? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5224794/a-fight-between-geeks-how-should-we-resolve-this

<comment><USER2> bad link - it doesn't work.</comment>


Why I'll Never Return to Singapore - <AUTHOR> http://www.lifelisted.com/blog/happens-everything-goes-right/ <comment><USER6> I've been working in singapore for four months this year, and I'm based out of Redwood City, California (not really a bastion of culture) but originally from Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada).

I absolutely understand what the author was writing about - I really love this country - it's clean, safe, _really_ clean, has really affordable food and incredible transportation system. The buses are actually worth using, and the people have been universally friendly. But, there is something missing.

When I go back to Canada, people live to do things outside of work. They go to the Abbotsford Apple Barn, Hang out at Stanley Park, spend an afternoon in the Vancouver Library, Head up to Cypress Bowl to go Snowboarding, etc, etc.. Maybe it's because there is more "space" \- but I'm still trying to find out what it is that people in Singapore do, and why? So often, the answer I get, is "Go to the Mall" or, "Take my kids to tuition".

The country has accomplished _incredible_ things with so few resources - <USER2> people are the only resources - and they've achieved a level of social and cultural harmony that really shows how poorly other countries are.

Perhaps I just need to spend a few more years to soak up the local culture and events - at the very least the hawker stands could keep me occupied that long.

<comment><USER7> I've only visited for a weekend and was utterly prepared to hate the crap out of Singapore. We're not up to a good start when your landing card spells out in bold and red _DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS_ (a bit more eloquent, but that's the gist of it).

Reality, however, is not quite as black and white and - although I would never want to live there for an extended period - I left the country with rather mixed feelings.

Let me pull out one example that really, really impressed me.

Near the Marina Sands (the $5B casino complex, which actually cost S$8B according to Wikipedia) they built the Gardens by the Bay ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_by_the_Bay](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_by_the_Bay)) for something above S$ 1B.

Those gardens, which are beautiful and very impressive; an oasis of calm and serenity in a bustling metropolis are built on reclaimed land. In essence: some of the most expensive ground anywhere in the world.

Just imagine the mega mall, the super hotel, or another office complex that could have been built on that land. And they "waste" it for a damn garden.

I thought that they did that despite the intense commercial pressure is immensely cool and is a really nice example for what are some great aspects about this city.

<comment><USER6> I'm looking at my Social Visit pass - you nailed it, it says in bright red:

 _WARNING DEATH FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS UNDER SINGAPORE LAW_

But - you get that message while you are still on the plane (and presumably have a chance to turn back?)

Yes - GardenByTheBay is beautiful - as are the two conservatoriums (one of which they replicate Dry, Cool Mountain Highland Environment - which, is quite an accomplishment in Hot, Humid Singapore.) Indeed - so much of Singapore is actually Green/Catchment basin - it's a priority for them, as they rely on the catchment basins quite a bit for their fresh water (in addition to _NEWater_ and their world class desalination plants.

<comment><USER8> Makes much more sense that what you have to declare in the US landing card:

[http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3289/2949309916_5393a54eb5_o.j...](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3289/2949309916_5393a54eb5_o.jpg)

I mean, seriously.

<comment><USER6> In Spring, 2001 I was in the midst of filling out my H1-B forms to become a permanent resident of the US when I came across that form (that I had to fill out to keep the process moving forward) - I just looked at it, and said to myself, "Really, I have to answer whether I have ever been involved in 'Genocide'?"

I felt insulted enough that I just dropped the process and I've been on a TN visa ever since.

Seriously - If I had been involved in Genocide, do they expect me to answer "Yes?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just spent a few days in Singapore with some western expat friends, and their local friends, and I really love the place for what it has accomplished. If you compare it to Malaysia (a racist command economy), Indonesia (kleptocracy , until recently -- in the past few years it has gotten a lot better) and Thailand (how many coups?), and remember how few natural resources Singapore has, it is even more amazing.

I agree it isn't perfect; I prefer living in the US, both because I'm a citizen and because I like land, cars, guns, etc -- but compared to where Singapore could be, it is almost unbelievable.

<comment><USER10> I don't think it's fair to compare Singapore to its neighbours considering how it was colonized. It's better to make the comparison with Hong Kong which enjoys much more freedom (even post 1997) than Singapore.

<comment><USER11> If you make that comparison, I would say Singapore has been a much more successful economy.

Hong Kong is stuck in it's role as a financial center, of which it's competitive advantage is getting eroded. Plus that 'competitive advantage' really boils down to knowing how to speak English and having extremely low wages for a developed economy.

On the other hand, Singapore has successfully transitioned from being a financial center to _the_ technological capital of East Asia. Something that the Hong Kong government desperately wants to do, but continues to fail at. And I am not even going to go into the current political storm.

Hong Kong is probably the more interesting city (I'm biased of course, having lived there for years and consider it my home away from home away from home) but out of the HK-Singapore rivalry, I think Singapore has the upper hand.

/rant

<comment><USER9> Hong Kong has the "curse" (in the sense of resource curse) of being the "Gateway to China" \-- I can't think of anything else a business could do in Hong Kong which is of higher value and return than that. It'll crowd out any other rational productive economic activity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm an American who has lived in Singapore for almost nine years, in two very different jobs, in two very different parts of the city-state. Singapore has a lot of challenges, but the oversimplifications and generalisations in this glib article don't do Singapore or Singaporeans any favours. (I've been here long enough that my spell-check is set to British English).

Let's take National Service (NS). Dover writes: "after graduating, every citizen is required to do active service in the military." This is wrong on at least three points, which is impressive for a sentence that short: 1) NS is not required of all citizens, only men; 2) NS is also required of male permanent residents who turn 18 in Singapore, and 3) it's an age requirement, not a graduation requirement.

He goes on to write that "pride is the result" of the NS requirement, in that part of the article that seems devoted to unqualified praise of Singapore's success. Really? Pride alone? Yes, male Singaporeans are proud of their service in NS, but plenty — especially younger Singaporeans — also resent it, resent the foreigners and women who don't have to do it and who they believe get an upper leg in society as a result. I've had Singaporean men explain away sexual harassment of women — harassment they witnessed first hand — on the grounds of the hazing they received during NS. If "sense of pride" is the only thing Dover has to say about NS in Singapore, even after months of living here, I'm not surprised he never had deep conversations with any Singaporeans.

Pro tip, Dover: there are better ways to investigate peoples' heritage than walking around asking people about their heritage. And if you do ask, and the answer you get is "what heritage?" and a laugh? Well, that may not mean what you think it means.

There's a lot happening in Singapore. It's an evolving place, with a growing civil society, increasing activism, growing nationalism and anti-foreigner sentiment, brutal competitiveness (the Singlish word is "kiasu", which is a Hokkien term that translates as "afraid to lose"), a terrible Gini coefficient, complex underlying racial tensions, and some absurd historical hard-edged nanny-state reflexes. There are a lot of things Singapore needs, but the dynamics are complex, not ripe for banal oversimplification.

<comment><USER13> gtuckerkellogg, thanks for your posting. I'm curious -- have you learned Mandarin or Malay language during your stay, enough to communicate extensively?

It was my experience living in Taiwan for two years that language is a significant requirement for understanding the culture, even when English is commonly spoken among the educated classes.

In my opinion, a month really isn't long enough to evaluate a country, even a small one such as Singapore.

<comment><USER12> I've learned to speak Mandarin, but not Malay. I can read and write enough to read the Chinese newspaper and sing karaoke. It's helpful: it breaks down a lot of cultural barriers, and makes chatting with cab drivers more fun. It also makes the Singlish more understandable. There's a lot of Singaporean English that borrows from Chinese word order, which in western English sounds harsh even though the Chinese word order (in Chinese) uses it as an expression of politeness. E.g., "Go to lunch, can or not?"

<comment><USER13> We used to talk that way in Taiwan, as a joke. I would amuse my Chinese friends by taking famous pop songs (Beatles, etc.) and singing them in my clumsy Chinese. They would roar with laughter. I think and believe they were laughing _with_ me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> On the flip side, I'd much rather the public schools in the US place the same amount of emphasis on math and science as the schools in Singapore.

I've spent 10 years in the education system in Singapore, and when I came to the US to continue high school, I was surprised at how dumbed down things are here. For example, topics typically covered in AP Chemistry would be part of the normal chemistry curriculum over in Singapore, and taught at the 9th grade level. High school lab sessions here were nothing more than simple experiments and anything more advanced were replaced with demos by teachers in the interest of liability and what not.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is basically a shorter, more weakly-argued version of William Gibson's first piece of non-fiction writing, Disneyland with the Death Penalty:

[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson_pr.html](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson_pr.html)

EDIT: not that it isn't a good blog. But if you like it, you should really read the gibson article too.

<comment><USER16> Gibson's article is a brilliant piece of writing, but it was written in 1993. Singapore has changed quite a bit in the two decades since, although many of his observations do remain painfully accurate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Like a lot of things I see grownups do, this action of leaving and never returning to Singapore strikes me as a reaction to one's past experience. I grew up in a crowded place where crime and terrorist attacks where a normal part of life. As an adult, I moved to the US and my job always took me to less crowded cities. I've visited places like New York since, and realized that I do not miss living in crowded places at all.

I read a lot about what's supposedly wrong with suburbia (the media and hollywood seems to view it as morally wrong), but I find myself drawn to the relative peace and slow pace they describe. I often think it's because of where I grew up.

To me, the author is making a similar move, though in the opposite direction. Life was too simple, too comfortable, and too polite in Singapore, and now he's had his full of it, and needs the opposite. I can relate, except I'm coming from where he's going, and I went to what he's trying to escape.

<comment><USER18> > (the media and hollywood seems to view it as morally wrong)

Their advertisers have a certain preference for how you spend your money. And suburban land developers are not exactly known for buying advertising on TV and product placement in movies. Its not a moral thing, just follow the money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > After graduating, every citizen is required to do active service in the > military.

Nitpick: Men only. It's a common lament here that the men start higher education/work a couple of years later than their women counterparts, hence "losing out".

<comment><USER20> Do women have children then during the same period? Seems more like an equalizer to me when it comes to time away from work.

Edit: explaining the equalizing factor

<comment><USER21> Should woman go to jail for avoiding children?

It actually makes situation for woman with children much worse, since she is alone while her partner is in military.

Gay couple with children, where both parents would have to go illustrates it well.

<comment><USER20>
      >> Should woman go to jail for avoiding children?

Do not see a reason why.

      >> It actually makes situation for woman with children much worse...

I am not discussing whether military service is good/bad, I am addressing the time away from work factor.

      >> Gay couple with children...

If both were in the service, they would need to get someone to take care of their children.

<comment><USER22> no law compels a woman to have a baby, or take 2yrs' leave to look after it. maybe the husband shares part of the duty. maybe its the husband that looks after the baby. but conscription compels singaporean men to provide labor at well below market rates, in this case for 2yrs, plus ongoing resrervist cycles for the next decade or so. its like. by law singaporean women have 24hrs a day, men have 22. or something like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Please tell me where in the world you shall live if you will not return to one of the best countries (as per most statistics) in the world?

And this guy is American. A country which invades other countries, kills civilians and holds people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. Yes, surely that is much better.

I haven't lived in Singapore but spent a bit of time there when I lived in Malaysia.

<comment><USER24> The guy simply expressed an opinion about where he doesn't want to live. You can't force him to agree with your opinion on the subject, and you're unlikely to convince anyone with a barely coherent rant about a bunch of topics not even relevant to the original post.

Calm the fuck down.

<comment><USER23> An I expressed my opinion. I think you are the one who needs to calm down given your words.

<comment><USER25> The OP posts about his direct experience in Singapore which are his reasons for leaving. You posted reasons for not coming into the US, that would not affect OP. Is he going to Guantanamo Bay? No. Does he murder civilians? No. Is America a beautiful and exciting country? Yes. It's the government and military which is fucked. If the OP's points for leaving were political, you would make some sense.

<comment><USER26> One thing I notice when I passed through the States, is that you are constantly being bombarded with advertising, subliminal messaging, NLP. Trying to sell you something, or mold the way you think.

(The fact that a large proportion of Americans seem to think they have a "right" to bear arms shows that more than just the government and military that are fucked.)

<comment><USER25> What's wrong with the right to bear arms?

<comment><USER23> Dead people that is what is wrong with it.

<comment><USER25> Is that your only gripe? In Norway civilians outgun the government 16:1. It's a lot more complicated than simple possession.

<comment><USER23> is dead people my only gripe? Surely you cannot be serious.

Guns in Norway are for hunting and require a license. And far less people own a gun there compared to the US.

<comment><USER25> I don't think completely abolishing civilians guns is the right answer. However, they should be VERY tightly regulated, and open carry should be abolished for sure. I'm okay with having a low caliber rifle in your house, locked away for intrusion/intimidation purposes in case of robbery.

Right now it's pretty crazy though. My American uncle has so many fucking guns that could blow holes in your chest, and I think that's wrong.

> is dead people my only gripe? Surely you cannot be serious.

Drop your attitude. If you have a point, make it. Nobody here is a mind reader.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> TL;DR: the country is all right, just didn't like it that much

<comment><USER28> 1st world problems. Singapore is too easy to live in.

<comment><USER29> Reading between the lines it seems he had a hard time finding friends. Singaporeans don't drink as excessively as Americans, so if your only "fun" outlet is alcohol you're gonna have a tough time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> That's some weak arguments. If anything, this article made me want to move to Singapore.

</comment><comment><USER31> Also worth reading is "Don't come home to soulless Singapore" [1] that too went viral.

[1]: [http://sg.news.yahoo.com/your-view--don-t-come-home-to- soull...](http://sg.news.yahoo.com/your-view--don-t-come-home-to-soulless- singapore-050421809.html)

</comment><comment><USER32> "In my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely moved past surface-level niceties."

As a Britain who lived in America, this is how I felt about Americans. I think its more of a cultural illusion.

<comment><USER33> As an American living in France, this is how I feel about the French.

But I've heard the opposite from other brits about Americans. We're too friggin nosey. We want to know where you live, where you went to school, what you do (this is really big blunder a lot of Americans make), and why you're here.

<comment><USER13> Agreed, I have been told by Europeans that it's not common in their region to ask what you do for a living. It's as though they'd rather talk about real things rather than mundane money-related humdrum topics. It's rather refreshing, actually.

Quite the opposite from Taiwan where I lived for a couple of years. People would ask questions that in the West would be considered incredibly intrusive: how old are you, what do you weigh, are you married (and if not, why not?) and so forth. To me it was like a giant Jewish family. Or, I guess, a giant Chinese family :)

<comment><USER33> It's a difference in mentality between old world Europe and America. Even in the 21st century some aspects of Paris (where I live) are still classist. And the most straightforward way to determine class is by your occupation.

Americans ask what do you do because we are, honestly, interested in what you do all day. I work in computers, after work I enjoy discussing computers, tech, drinking. In a previous life I was a bartender, wind tunnel tech, and traveler. But I don't do that now and if I wasn't behind the bar most people wouldn't know I lived that life. So what do you do is an icebreaker for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've lived in Singapore all my life save for a few years in the US.

This article's points are weakly argued, and Singapore's staidness is entirely a first-world problem which people from some neighbouring countries wouldn't find much of a problem at all. But on the whole, I'd agree with the author that Singapore is lacking in quite a few ways compared to the top cities (economically or culturally) of the world. Off the top of my head:

1) _A conservative, risk-averse, wealth-focused culture of keeping up with the Joneses._ This is mostly the modern result of traditional Chinese competitiveness and desire for 'face'. Parents live for their children - <USER3> want your kids to do well so you can proudly tell others about them, and because you expect to support you financially when you're old. You pressure them to take the well-respected and profitable route in life, and you prohibit them from taking the risky path to inevitable ruin as a starving artist, etc.

The children then go into executive jobs, trying to be managers, avoiding the low-paid engineering/technical positions (programming, pfft, that's for cheap foreign labour), and not caring very much about things that don't have an immediate impact on their careers or everyday lives. The endgame is to own property and collect rent, which is the main gateway to wealth (as it is in most of Asia - just look at how the majority of Asian tycoons made their fortunes).

This causes most Singaporeans to be relatively homogeneous in the things they do and their outlook on the world. You won't find anywhere near the range of activities, passions and hobbies that Americans engage in. Everyone does the same few things, and talks about the same few topics, all of the time.

2) _A dearth of dreams, imagination, and world-changing idealism._ The core value of Singapore is pragmatism, and it's built into every facet of this place. The parenting, school system, government, and even national service in the military all shape citizens toward a very stable and staid pattern of thought: that things can't be changed, that responsibilities to family come first, that there's no point trying to correct the system or working to change it because the school/army/corporate/government bureaucracy is too entrenched and won't ever listen. This sense of "nothing's going to change, why bother fighting" was particularly bad in the '90s and before, and I still hear such opinions from my parents. Is it a surprise, then, that innovation wasn't too prized until recently?

It doesn't help that there didn't use to be a wide range of employment available in the earlier decades, so not many people tried to eke out careers in more unusual areas, much less start campaigns to change Singaporean society and the world. The older generation of Singaporeans would deride these endeavours as mere dreams and silly teenage notions; you'd grow out of it eventually and become a doctor or executive or whatever. Hardly anyone has made a big impact internationally - whether as an athlete, artist, scientist, or entrepreneur - which meant that there were few role models for kids to look up to. No Michael Jordans or Bill Gateses here.

3) _Size._ Many of Singapore's problems stem from its size. The lack of space results in runaway rents. Sky-high rents drive out less profitable business and ensure few people can experiment with new, risky concepts that don't turn a big profit. This keeps businesses more conservative and makes it hard for organic enclaves to emerge here. (You rarely see unoccupied shop space here, much less abandoned buildings where someone might throw a pop-up party or hold an exhibition.)

High rents also mean everyone lives with their parents, can't afford to buy a house till they get married, and is reluctant to rent a place. They don't have their own space to socialise, have people over, live their own lives, which makes for a pretty sober existence - literally and figuratively. (I suspect this is one reason the rate of singlehood is really high; we simply don't have enough fun with friends, and rarely meet new people.) Then the high density also leads to massive peak load on public transport, which worsen the daily experience.

The island's small size and heavy urbanisation leaves it with few natural scenic spots. You have to fly out to get anywhere scenic (this is related to point 4).

Finally, the small population isn't a very attractive target for entrepreneurs, and the lack of a shared culture with nearby countries makes it hard to penetrate those markets without moving there. It also makes it a much more comfortable bet to be a professional than an entrepreneur or artist. Having few successful entrepreneurs leads to fewer kids having big dreams.

4) _Climate and geography._ The heat and humidity mean that it's simply not enjoyable to hang out in the sun. You can't enjoy long walks or bicycle rides here without getting drenched in sweat. If you hang out with friends, you do it in air-conditioning, which means restaurants, bars, and shopping malls. I can't go and sit on the grass like I did in the US, much less head out of town to snowboard, walk through vineyards, or camp by a lake.

It's also a relatively flat island. An American friend's visiting mother remarked that one problem with Singapore is that it lacks a mountain, and she's right. Add to that the lack of seasons and the relatively monotonous tropical foliage, and you end up with nature that isn't all that enjoyable and barely any scenic vistas. In stark contrast are the natural and man-made sights of Japan and Taiwan, which awe Singaporeans endlessly - it's no surprise that they're probably the most popular travel destinations for us.

5) _A lack of natural community and social openness._ Like many dense cities, we don't have many events and local festivals that naturally bring communities together. This is in contrast to the festivals that occur in many neighbouring countries, in Europe, in Japan, and wherever old traditions have been preserved. Many Singaporeans are strangers to their neighbours, which makes for a small social circle and a closedness to making new friends outside of school.

There's no culture of talking to strangers at all, and children are actively discouraged from taking an interest in other people (being a "kaypoh" busybody). I remember this acutely from my own upbringing; you minded your own business, because you'd probably look silly if you tried to interfere in others, or even get in trouble.

A co-worker from Vietnam commented that while he makes much more money here, he finds that home offers more enjoyment and celebration of life and friendships, more things to do, and less of a focus on work and earning money. This echoes comments I've heard from foreigners from France, New York, China, and elsewhere.

\-----

Some of these things have changed a bit, especially with the changing outlook of top politicians, the livening up of the city centre, and the loosening of old bureaucratic rules. Many more people have travelled or lived overseas, which has lead some to import foreign ideas: witness the boom in cafes, bars, campaigns and organisations started by yuppies who fell in love with an idea, a style, or a culture while they were abroad. But the historical inertia of being a pragmatic, competitive, unidealistic, and unopen culture is too much to overcome in a mere decade or two.

No magic ever happens in Singapore. Godzilla attacks Tokyo, mobsters run Hong Kong, down-and-out writers shoot to fame in New York, Hollywood stars zip around Los Angeles, tech revolutions start in Silicon Valley - <USER4> Singaporeans would scoff and laugh at a movie that set the fantastical or whimsical in Singapore. We're enraptured by the fairytale fantasies that Korean dramas spin, because we have none of that. We can't imagine anything interrupting our routine, everyday lives and stolid bureaucracy. It's like being in a small town and knowing that monsters will only ever attack New York. That's the upshot of a Singaporean upbringing.

I completely understand why people would leave for more culturally rich places. I hope to eventually spend at least half my time out of the country, probably through building a cross-national business - but for now I'm stuck here, looking for the right connections and opportunities (if you're in town and have a good idea, get in touch).

<comment><USER35> Thanks for speaking some sense. I suspect the author got the notion of Singaporean pride wrong. We're far more prideful when we feel attacked or maligned by foreigners, despite the day to day lamentations. You've stated arguments I agree with, but I do honestly feel that you're overgeneralizing to a large extent. I think it helps if we consider again what you mentioned about size. Singapore has a relatively small population. It's true, we don't produce that many groundbreaking innovations, but we need to consider the mathematical probabilities of having them in a relatively smaller population as well. My guess is that the detriment is at least an n^2 term, with less sharing of ideas, interaction and encouragement to pursue risk. As a student, I increasingly see people pursuing the entrepreneurship and more risky careers, rather than "selling out". After reading so many American articles and opinions and blogs, I don't think the idea of pursuing low risk paths is specifically amplified in Singapore. Everyone wants to do amazing things, but no one dares to. It just so happens that it's more common in other countries because of larger populations, and the environment that successful by chance entrepreneurs (I say this not to deride them but as a point of argument) have fostered. I don't have statistics to back this up, but hey we had Creative and Sembcorp/KeppelCorp. Our successes are just a lot less sexy. There's a lot of fallacious stereotyping as a result. Pragmatism doesn't imply a lack of innovation, creativity or success. On the contrary, it finds the most efficient way through to it. Our research institutions ASTAR focus on the commercialization of technology. That means we miss the sights and sounds and new discoveries along the way, we don't have Nobel Prizes, but can one really say that one type of practical innovation is better than the other?

Although props to you on the culture analogy. Nothing interesting ever happens in Singapore. For that, I think we must be at least slightly thankful. It's interesting to watch a government's politicking, gridlock and shutdown, but if and only if it's in _another_ country

<comment><USER34> > _My guess is that the detriment is at least an n^2 term, with less sharing > of ideas, interaction and encouragement to pursue risk._

Absolutely. That's part of the reason for the lower level of risk-taking and innovation here. It boils down to having a small population.

> _As a student, I increasingly see people pursuing the entrepreneurship and > more risky careers, rather than "selling out"._

Yes, this is definitely a trend, and a good one. I was talking more about the past. The pressure to go for fancy careers is still high, though - except that banking and consulting have supplanted medicine and law to some extent.

> _It just so happens that it 's more common in other countries because of > larger populations_

You seem to be arguing that it's not our fault that we have less risk-taking and innovation here, it's just our small population that's the problem. Well, I don't entirely disagree - I think our size is half the problem, and the other half is our society's historical evolution (and cultural roots). It doesn't change the fact that our market size limits our entrepreneurial prospects - unless we learn to sell to big, lucrative markets like Israeli startups did.

> _we had Creative and Sembcorp /KeppelCorp_

Creative was our sole shining star, and now it's essentially gone, massively outcompeted by Apple. SembCorp, PSA, Surbana and the like are ex-national corporations (IIRC) that I don't consider examples of entrepreneurship - <USER5> were built in the mould of efficiently-run government departments from the start. I do like the fact that Charles & Keith, Hyflux, BreadTalk, et al are seeing some success overseas. Still, we don't have a Sony or Samsung.

> _Our research institutions ASTAR focus on the commercialization of > technology_

They didn't use to, and now they're driving the real scientists and big names away with their renewed focus on commercialisation. Honestly they should never have focused on basic research in the first place, but instead on commercialising technologies from around the world.

I like your optimism that things are changing - that's the spirit we need to take more adventurous paths. The more people who want to achieve big things and don't want to settle for the usual routes, the better.

To our foreign friends, our young generation is pretty alright.

<comment><USER6> Regarding Risk - what are the issues/concerns about bankruptcy in Singapore? In the United States, most of the risk is borne by the lender, and, in the event of financial collapse - the individual usually is able to come back swinging after a few years in the penalty box - which certainly reduces the downside to taking risk. If they finance with venture capital, or a LLC, then even those several years in the penalty box aren't a concern - ALL of the financial risk is borne by the VCs.

The reduction of cost-of-failure plays a very large role in whether people are prepared to risk failure.

<comment><USER22> check out the median income vs the price of housing.. the median singaporean couple can barely afford a flat with a 30 year loan.. the average couple might afford to have a baby.. or a car.. there's no room for risk for most singaporeans' lives. other than the state run lottery..check out the queues...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The quick search I just made for suicide rate per capita shows the rate in Singapore is kinda average.

<comment><USER37> "The suicide rate in Singapore is rising at an unprecedented rate of 29% a year. With people between the age of 20-29, the increase is a horrifying 80%."

The author said that it is rising rapidly, not that it is currently high.

<comment><USER16> {{citation needed}} for both those figures. Sure, Singapore's education system is pretty brutal, but it's nowhere near as hardcore as (say) South Korea or China.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> So he doesn't want to return to Singapore because everything went right in that country? People are never satisfied! He doesn't list a single problem except for suicide rates going up - which on a per capita basis is average when compared to the other countries.

<comment><USER39> No, this is the real reason from the article:

"I describe my time living in Singapore as sterile. Nothing particularly bad happened but it wasn't particularly good either. Daily life was convenient but it was only the bare minimum of living. I had everything I needed to be comfortable but I didn't have anything that inspired me. Even though there wasn't a language barrier, I encountered a hefty communication barrier. In my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely moved past surface- level niceties. Of the conversations that I took part in and overheard, the vast majority of them were about work. I routinely watched people work 15 hours days and stress over strict deadlines. Yes it was living and they were making progress but it wasn't holistic and people openly admitted to me that it wasn't fulfilling."

And it's true. It's a country of 716.1 km2 (276 sq mi). For locals, life there is mind-numbingly boring and stressful. I too left and would never return.

<comment><USER40> I laughed a bit when I read that paragraph. Because I am sure it is the current/future dream of most of the people on HN to work for a big internet company in Silicon Valley. Which of course means long hours with your free time spent talking about work.

The fact is that in "international" cities like Singapore, London, Sydney, Paris etc people do work long hours and in their spare time often talk about what they are spending the majority of their life doing. It's completely natural and par for the course.

<comment><USER39> There's a big difference between Singapore and London. In many other countries, you can move between cities to find the place that fit you better. From London, you can go to say, Manchester, Edinburgh, or even the rest of EU is open to you.

In Singapore, you can move between neighbourhoods. The neighbourhoods are more or less the same. Once you've lived there for a while, you go to the same place that you've been to hundreds (or maybe thousands) of times after work. It all got really really boring after a while. The typical (expected) long working hours in the society doesn't help either. All you do is work, eat and sleep. And shopping. After 10 years, I too left and would never return.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> What an amazingly entitled and self-absorbed piece. Complaining because it is too comfortable? Complaining because "nothing inspired me"? Complaining because "people" won't have engaging conversations with you? Stop whining and do something about it.

> I describe my time living in Singapore as sterile. Nothing particularly bad > happened but it wasn't particularly good either. Daily life was convenient > but it was only the bare minimum of living. I had everything I needed to be > comfortable but I didn't have anything that inspired me. Even though there > wasn't a language barrier, I encountered a hefty communication barrier. In > my experience, people were polite but conversations rarely moved past > surface-level niceties. Of the conversations that I took part in and > overheard, the vast majority of them were about work. I routinely watched > people work 15 hours days and stress over strict deadlines. Yes it was > living and they were making progress but it wasn't holistic and people > openly admitted to me that it wasn't fulfilling.

</comment><comment><USER42> I don't get it... actually my dream would be to work in Singapore and to be able to get to Bali or Kuala Lumpur or Thailand or Australia in such a short time is just perfect. You have a great work place but the possibility to experience very different countries.

<comment><USER43> I am currently residing in Singapore and in my opinion - there is not really much to see here and in the surrounding areas, if you are here for more than a month.

I encourage you, before nosediving here for a longer period (like I do for 9 months), visit the place and make sure you really like it here. I do not, as my view of Singapore highly correlates with the article.

<comment><USER42> I think the main problem for the author is that singapore is to clean and to un-exciting for him, because everyone just works and is in line. But my point is to have a good working environment (evidently one can work quite well in SG) but look around for the non-working time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> how about 'because it is an authoritarian single party state'?

<comment><USER45> Nowhere in the article does the author blame this for the perceived issues he mentions. In fact from his tone, this seems to be a positive in the way Singapore has improved in modern terms.

<comment><USER44> that's my point. he doesn't acknowledge the most important factor, although it actually underlies many of his issues.

"improved in modern terms" is very twisted language - perhaps you'd care to explain what you mean by this specifically

<comment><USER45> I meant the attributes that we measure progress by. Quoted straight from the article - "It leads the world in education, banking, shipping and has created a everyday existence of unrivaled cleanliness, safety and stability"

<comment><USER44> education, banking and shipping are of course all much easier in a city state which is advantageously located and was, prior to decolonialistion, full of the best facilities for all of these in the region by far..

safety, cleanliness and stability are all pretty straightforward attributes of authoriarianism . Unless we want to reconsider our concpetion of 20th century governments usually deemed 'backward' which also achieved this, I'm not sure we should call this 'progress'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Life is short, why spend it in places you dont enjoy?

<comment><USER26> because all the decent paying jobs are in crappy big cities. I would far rather live in the mountains.

<comment><USER47> So work in the crappy big cities, making your decent pay. If you save enough, maybe you'll be able to live in the mountains for a while before you die, hopefully not spending the entire time regretting that you lived for money instead of what you actually wanted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Well, look at the Happy Planet Index, the top choices are not countries that are known for having great development ratings.

1\. Costa Rica 2\. Vietnam 3\. Colombia 4\. Belize 5\. El Salvador

I have to admit that I don't believe people in Belize or El Salvador are happier than say Mexico or Panamá just to name a few neighbors. It's weird how the first "Industrialized" country is Israel at 15th place, and the next is New Zealand at 28th followed by Norway. Also most of the top 30 are latinamerican countries, so maybe is just a cultural thing to be always happy.

</comment><comment><USER49> The problem I have with this (and Gibson's article linked below) is that there is an incredibly patronizing undercurrent to the complaints that everything is clean and works right. Grinding poverty and picturesque slums might be a creative ferment for Western expatriates (who can almost always pick and choose what they experience), but the Asians, Africans, South Americans, etc who are forced to suffer those conditions their entire lives don't see it that way at all.

</comment><comment><USER50> The complaints about Singapore all seem true for many years. Sure it's a little sterile. Sure it's conservative. Sure it's small. These have all been true.

It's also open to outsiders, and a model for good governance, and a mutli- cultural hub.

It's ok to leave, but to say, "Screw you, I'm gone forever and never coming back" just seems childish.

<comment><USER26> Anecdotaly, I have two friends who lived in Singapore for a couple of years. Both them said the same as the author.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I feel dumber for having read that.

<comment><USER52> Seriously? I agree with the OP. And I've spent quite a bit of time in Singapore when I was younger.

<comment><USER40> I found it incredibly stupid.

Never return to Singapore because every day students declare pride in their country ? Great. Better not spend any time in the US, UK, Australia or countless other countries. Or do people think kids are just born with an understanding of the flag, anthem etc.

And citizens are forced to spend time in the military. Okay that is a bit much but hardly unprecedented. And personally I find the military propaganda in the US far more insidious.

As for average quality of life. Well that is obviously debatable:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of- life_Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index)

<comment><USER53> Exactly what are you thinking of when you refer to "the military propaganda in the US"? I've never had the impression that the military was held in particularly high regard; serving in the military is the sort of thing you might be ashamed to admit that your children do. Or look at how college students object to even allowing recruiters onto the campus.

Obviously, attitudes differ place-to-place. But I found your phrase somewhat bemusing.

<comment><USER54> Perhaps it's harder to see looking from the inside, but most other cultures are MUCH less Military obsessed than the US just about any way you measure it...

<comment><USER53> I'm willing to believe this. I was serious when I asked "what are you thinking of?" I'd like some examples.

<comment><USER54> I wish I had some real data to give you as examples, without talking about Top Gun, the military-industrial complex or reducing the conversation to personal anecdotes about my experiences in the US.

As you said attitudes differ place-to-place, and I don't want to generalize all Americans, I would say it's safe to assume our Hacker News audience is more likely to be Liberal and Educated then the general American populace. However as a Canadian here's some crap I came up with out my ass:

Military force as a perceived requirement or definition of 'freedom' doesn't exist at your scale elsewhere.

Glorification of war and gun violence in Hollywood, Gaming and on the News, general fear-mongering and militarization of the police.

You guys have been involved in some war or another for about as long as you've been a country..

\-- Hope I didn't offend anyone, here's at least one link as support..

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> If you seek fulfillment from within it matters not where you are situated.

<comment><USER56> Gonna remember that the next time I wind up in Manila or Milton Keynes or Chernobyl or Dhaka..

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> a bit off track perhaps. singapore was supposedly working towards achieving a "swiss standard of living".. now that the swiss are considering a citien's income scheme..i wonder if singapore would follow...ahahhahahahhha...

</comment><comment><USER57> I've lived in Singapore. It's actually a pretty amazing country for such small years into existence. There are some shady stuff being done in the name of profit at the expense of its population, but then again so does any country that has high taxes with mediocre added value.

This person argues about foreigners - in only to become one henself. Ironyyyyy

<comment><USER14> I'd say the US has more problems than Singapore... And on the topic of taxes, the tax rate in Singapore is actually much lower than in the US (based on CA; middle class).

<comment><USER58> why BMWs are on average 4 times more expensive in Singapour than US? Low taxes at work? Need to use public transportation because cars ownership is taxed to hell and back? How came person using bus and not owning a car is considered to have better standard of living?

<comment><USER59> Because taxis are cheap and taxing private cars so much cuts down the traffic jams immensely.

I'm happier taking the bus in Singapore than I would owning a car in half on the United States.

<comment><USER58> I'm happier in the US where the dream of owning BMW or Porsche may easily become reality vs. just stay a dream forever.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What makes the perfect office? - <AUTHOR> http://timharford.com/2017/02/what_makes_the_perfect_office/ <comment><USER3> One of the best ever work environments I had the pleasure to experience was at my last employer, when I first started.

At that time, me and two other new guys all started at the same time, and we were assigned their lead developer to on-board us into the environment. It was all new stuff to all of use (especially the other two guys - one was fresh out of uni, the other had never had a full-time office job - only contract work). I had only regular web-dev experience (front and back end) - but this was completely new to me.

It was server automation and management, for a hosting company. The stack was a combination of PHP mixed with Java and shell scripting. They wanted to move into cloud hosting services (VPS) - so our task was to learn the system, maintain it where necessary, and also transition things over to (ultimately) an OpenStack/OpenCloud environment (while keeping the old stuff still going, of course). It was being thrown to the wolves, because we had to get this all done in a very short time frame.

Unfortunately, they had no where to seat us in the small office - except one spot: The conference room they had interviewed us in. This was a small 9 x 12 room, with a single door, and a glass wall.

They brought in a desk system, and set up the machines (well, we set them up). We got to work. It was hot inside, because the AC had no vent into the room (and we're in Phoenix, Arizona which didn't help). We called the room - initially - the "oven". It was miserable - so we all had fans. We turned off the lights. Just the glow of the monitors to light the room.

The lead - he set up spotify and would run his music (or whatever) and we would listen. I was the old guy (I'm in my 40s) - so the music was new to me, but I liked it. It was a crazy mix of Kesha, some kind of pirate metal, dubstep, Dragonforce, and other weirdness. I loved the mix. We hacked to that, and I gained an appreciation for music I had never experienced before.

Eventually we got our first mascot - someone drew a dickbutt on the glass next to the door, with a flower coming out the rear. Awesome. Described our stack perfectly (I eventually cranked out a fake O'Reilly "book" for the stack) - when it worked, it worked great, but most of the time it was a dickbutt and there was nothing we could do about it (most of those problems were on the server side, which we could only barely touch because our IT guy wasn't the most personable, and held total control over the 10k+ servers in the queue).

At another point, our manager decided to rescue us from our oven, and we got a portable A/C unit - vented into the ceiling. That made things bearable - well, until the thing overflow with condensation (nobody told us to empty it). But - the oven became the "barn" in no time. We called it the barn out of a joke involving bronies or something, I dunno.

And...we got a new mascot. Our lead was culturally jewish, and he told us of a tale called "Hershel and the Hanukkah Goblins". Apparently this is a real book. Well - to fit into the theme, our new mascot that appeared one day was a hobby horse we named "Hershel". We propped it up on our desk system, added a hat and feather, and continued to work.

We got the system done - well, working to the point that it was real, did what it was supposed to do...

Eventually, the barn was dismantled when we moved to a new office - to an open floorplan (ugh). Too much light. The camaraderie that was developed in our oven barn, while it continued to a certain point - it wasn't quite the same. About a year later, the company was sold, I quit and moved on to other pastures, and the new company eventually got rid of the dev team (because they never wanted it in the first place, nor the software we developed).

But it was a great time while it lasted. Take from it what you can or will...

<comment><USER4> The pirate metal had to be Alestorm, right?

<comment><USER3> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> See also: chapter 9 of the seminal "Peopleware," 3rd edition:

[snip] Before drawing the plans for its Santa Teresa facility, IBM violated all industry standards by carefully studying the work habits of those who would occupy the space. The study was designed by the architect Gerald McCue with the assistance of IBM area managers. Researchers observed the work processes in action in current work spaces and in mock-ups of proposed work spaces. They watched programmers, engineers, quality control workers, and managers go about their normal activities. From their studies, they concluded that a minimum accommodation for the mix of people slated to occupy the new space would be the following:

• 100 square feet of dedicated space per worker • 30 square feet of work surface per person • Noise protection in the form of enclosed offices or 6-foot-high partitions (they ended up with about half of all professional personnel in enclosed one- and two-person offices)

The rationale for building the new laboratory to respect these minimums was simple: People in the roles studied needed the space and quiet in order to perform optimally. Cost reduction to provide work space below the minimum would result in a loss of effectiveness that would more than offset the cost savings. Other studies have looked into the same questions and come up with more or less the same answers. [/snip]

I just read "Deep Work" (due to another HN user's comment somewhere) and it's full of good information. Being able to work free of distractions and interruptions means incredible productivity.

See also [http://wiki.c2.com/?LordOfTheFlies](http://wiki.c2.com/?LordOfTheFlies)

<comment><USER6> Deep Work also has a whole part on Building 20, similar to the article. It really articulated my thoughts on open work spaces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The results of that study do not surprise me at all. At my company, there are no rules about clutter, but the cleaners wipe down everyone's desk every day as best they can. I'm a clutter-free type of person: my desk has nothing but my monitor/keyboard, phone, lamp, a notepad, and a small potted plant. When I come in and everything's been moved a few inches (like the plant all the way to the edge of the desk or phone right up against the monitor) it drives me insane. And then I feel bad, because someone cleans my fucking desk everyday and I just get annoyed about it.

<comment><USER8> I'm curious: What makes daily cleaning necessary?

We've weekly cleaning and it seems to be sufficient.

<comment><USER9> Probably it's just to provide a clean-feeling workspace. It's nice to start a day and the coffee machine is clean and the trash bins are empty - <USER2> the latter is important, given that food waste etc. can quickly develop a nasty smell.

<comment><USER8> I agree but couldn't the employees themselves take care of such stuff?

We share such minor duties in the office (and food waste goes to the bio waste bin if suitable or gets packed in small bags). Maybe we're simply not spoiled enough! ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A door I can close when I need to concentrate.

Adjustable lighting so I won't need sunglasses. (My current employer got a bit carried away; I have modded my overhead lights with a warm yellow gel film to make it more agreeable.)

Coffee (or the means for making such) within easy reach.

<comment><USER11> I'm going to mount an umbrella in a few days to block the overhead lighting. I requested that the lighting be turned off, and it was, but another employee (who only comes to the office once per week) had it turned back on a few days later.

<comment><USER12> People in my office use something like this:

[https://www.amazon.com/Ikea-Lova-Canopy-Green- Leaf/dp/B001QS...](https://www.amazon.com/Ikea-Lova-Canopy-Green- Leaf/dp/B001QSAAOQ)

edit: one of the comments says it's 1/4th that price in the actual store

<comment><USER10> I used a gel similar to this[0]; cheap and effective. (Though the hue chosen is probably open for debate; I am somewhat chromatographically challenged.)

[0][http://www.stagelightingstore.com/15-Deep- Straw?sc=25&catego...](http://www.stagelightingstore.com/15-Deep- Straw?sc=25&category=827816)

<comment><USER13> CTS (Color Temperature Straw) is just about right, actually. The other alternative, CTO (Color Temperature Orange) is, in some senses, "more correct", but the heavier red bias makes some people feel like they're working by candlelight - even in brighter light, it feels a bit dim and closer to bedtime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14>
        > When workers were deliberately disempowered, their work suffered
        > and of course, they hated it. "I wanted to hit you," one
        > participant later admitted to an experimenter.

Everything everything _everything_ makes more sense when you remember that humans are tribal, territorial mammals.

If you're given autonomy over your space, it becomes your territory. Even team automony is OK if you are emotionally tied to your team enough for them to feel like "your tribe".

But if you are not, you are forever in some _other_ mammal's territory. Imagine a wolf walking through their own woods, smelling the scent of their packmates. They are confident, relaxed, calm. Now put that wolf in anothers' forest. Anxious, hunted, always on the alert for an attack. This is what it feels like to inhabit a space you can't have any influence on.

</comment><comment><USER15> A clean, cubicle-free environment, but with desks in a small-ish room, with no more than 3 other people that you can get along with. There should be spaces for professional and personal belongings. The building should be near amenities like convenience stores and restaurants, and as a bonus, located such that cars aren't necessary for commuting.

<comment><USER16> To me personally, it doesn't matter if I am sitting among a group of 30 people or 3 people, I don't want to hear my coworkers' typing, coughing, eating, drinking, phone calls, chair adjustments, conversations, etc.

Those are all distractions that I can do without and that I think I am personally more sensitive to than others may be. Not to mention that in a shared office you are sharing the lighting, temperature, decor, etc. In a private office those are all things that I control and are personalized to my preferences and comfort.

<comment><USER15> Agreed, the quieter, the better. For myself, I share a room with another programmer and 2 designers. Things are usually pretty quiet until our manager steps in. Our CEO came by when the manager was off, and noted how quiet it was.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Reading these comments about territorialism and control over environment has brought into focus why users are upset when an application or OS changes its UI, even slightly; it's not just that they have to relearn something, it's that their environment has been changed. Maybe they reluctantly accepted that in advance as a price worth paying to get new functionality or bug fixes or maybe the software auto-updated or the update was imposed by Tech Services and the change was unexpected.

Same kind of thing with the recent discussions on here about software becoming obsolete and non-functional due to support being dropped (either because the OS won't run it, because r because the software depended on servers which have been shut down). This is another case of users losing control over their environment, and it's important to recognise the issue and the emotions involved, even if you don't relate yourself.

</comment><comment><USER18> It seems like the important thing is having some influence over your environment. If everything seems to have been placed with care, an occupant might hesitate to change things to their preference. But if the place doesn't seem to have any form, than they can feel free to change the form to suit.

</comment><comment><USER19> Loved the bit about Building 20 at MIT. It really did embody the hacker ethos with its freedom even to rebuild the physical space to suit your project. Oddly enough, some of my German classes were in that building and I remember walking through the halls and ducking under bundles of cables that were running overhead to different labs where real work was getting done. It really was a legendary place and I'm glad I got to see it before it was torn down.

<comment><USER20> The Swiss furniture company USM had the ultimate building system. It was essentially Mechano or Construx for building.

Their furniture is similar, they have three basic pieces - girder (tube), joints (balls) and panel. Out of that you can make any of their furniture. [1]

A similar system existed for buildings. You could expand and deconstruct your building quickly and easily as need changed. Unfortunately it wasn't a success on the market - too modern for the times, and it was discontinued in the 60's. The furniture is still going strong though.

If I ever get rich, I'd love to buy the rights off them and try again.

[1] usm.com

<comment><USER21> I built my desk out of standard scaffolding and structural ply for the same reasons, if I ever want to change it I can do it with an allen key and an angle grinder.

No regrets (other than the amount of time the waxing took on the top panel).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This page desperately needs line breaks between paragraphs.

<comment><USER23> This should help.

[https://gist.github.com/anonymous/116607085a89c176be1fe23e55...](https://gist.github.com/anonymous/116607085a89c176be1fe23e55cd8fd1#file- office-md)

<comment><USER24> Bless you

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Even with elegant design and personalization, I cannot stand working in open offices, where everyone is crammed next to each other trying to concentrate on code. Companies seem to tout this style of office as a great thing--you know, for collaboration--but it is just a return to the dismal style of factory production lines manned with rows and rows of peons.

My perfect office is either in my home or a closed, private room where I can concentrate. If I need to collaborate, I'll leave said private room. I also like having a treadmill/standing desk and exactly one of these lightbulbs: [http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/00317155/](http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/00317155/)

</comment><comment><USER26> I worked at a defense contractor in Utah that, at the time, had close to 4k employees. Needless to say, this business consisted of massive warrens of cubicles. I was employee #3 in a new Ux/Human Factors group and the first thing that we did was collaborate with Facilities group to design an open workspace where a joint team of Ux and programmers would work to build customer-facing software products. I had spent much of my grad school working on designing team-based workspaces on behalf Herman Miller and Steelcase during the 1990s, so this was a great way to incubate some of those ideas.

We designed several of these workspaces with both personal and shared work areas, including tables for lunch activities (mainly speed chess) and meetings. There were a lot of marker boards and everyone had double the desk space than they had in their cubicles. Both projects were huge successes and still in use to this day.

Here are a few of my observations:

1) Facilities was NOT on board but we had the managerial support to push the project through. 2) The first six months was like being in a fish tank. People constantly stopped by to observe us and ask questions. 3) Similar open-offices started popping up throughout the organization. 4) Some of them failed. 5) Ours did not.

I think that some of reasons that we could be effective in an open-office as a group of cats and dogs (designers and engineers/programmers) were as follows:

1) We only recruited talent that was willing and able to perform in this environment 2) We respected the desire of team members that didn't want to work in this environment, but we kept them close 3) There was nearby private space that could be checked out as needed 4) We got to design the space 5) We were not crammed together and there was implied privacy. For example, nobody every faced another person. We had portable markers boards that could be used as impromptu dividers, and if someone had headphones on, that was a pretty good sign that they were not to be bothered. 6) Nobody dictated how we were to use the space at a group or individual level 7) There was trust 8) We were able to design, develop and iterate faster due to being in close proximity. The intimacy of the workspace worked well with our daily scrums and short design/development cycles. In the previous model, teams were often not colocated and it wasn't uncommon to jump on shuttles and bicycles to get to meetings.

tl;dr

The space was designed by its voluntary occupants and it improved the effectiveness of the team and the end-products as a result.

<comment><USER27> _> there was implied privacy._

This is so important. Staring at my least favorite coworker all day was one of the things I hated most about my last job. You wouldn't think it was a big deal, but she was basically reporting each time I went to the restroom or to get water or food, making "tsk" sounds every time I scratched my arm or moved, and sometimes giving a straight on stare of anger for long minutes.

-shivers- Least favorite work environment ever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> An effective office for a programmer is one where it's possible to concentrate for prolonged stretches. That's really all that matters.

</comment><comment><USER11> Having your back to the wall and no overhead lights.

<comment><USER29> I get that you don't want things behind your back, but what's wrong with overhead lights? I mean every office/room/space has a light on the ceiling.

<comment><USER11> It makes me feel like the sun is shining on my face, and I want to seek shelter.

<comment><USER30> The sun makes you look for shelter?

<comment><USER31> Yes. Somewhere cool and dark and quiet.

Although I must say that indirect sunlight, filtered again through dark green leaves right outside the window at the other end of the room, is pretty pleasant. All the heat is kept outside where it belongs, there's no glare, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> What amazes me in my company that although everybody agrees that the current setup is bad whenever they do something new they fall back to gray cubicles or open space. It seems this is just unstoppable despite everybody agreeing that it s not good.

<comment><USER22> Cubicles are infinitely better than open space. At least in a cubicle I get my own desk, relative privacy, and freedom to decorate the space as I please.

<comment><USER33> Cubicles also provide a natural boundary so that when someone comes to talk loudly at the person seated next to me, they don't stand directly beside me to do so.

Open office plans are the worst.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > When workers were empowered to design their own space, they had fun and > worked hard and accurately...

Generalize this from physical space to development environment: It's nice when ui doesn't change by a few pixels each morning. It's nice when namespaces aren't continuously churning. API stability makes work fun.

</comment><comment><USER35> My house, my desk, my expensive chair.

Everything else is inferior.

<comment><USER36> That's precisely what I was thinking as I read the article. I go into the office for meetings--usually three mornings a week--but all real thought-work happens at home. My home office is quiet, has natural light which I can control to my liking, my chair fits me perfectly, and I can enjoy the company of my cat. Most importantly, I feel _at peace_ when I'm at home. No amount of office decoration can substitute for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Doors

</comment><comment><USER38> A decent size room with ~5 people, a little extra room, natural light with a nice view, and some nice accent lighting for when natural light isn't enough.

Where I work now: Open office with some natural light (skylights) but no windows, florescent and/or LED lighting. At least the desks are ok.

</comment><comment><USER39> Private offices with separate collaborative areas. The actual architecture and interior design could be performed tolerably well by a monkey.

</comment><comment><USER40> There's a really good BBC TV series about this topic, which also covers the MIT Radio Lab that Tim mentions:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEqfg2sIH0)

"How Buildings Learn" (1997)

</comment><comment><USER41> A locked room with adjustable light and a 27" iMac with internet connection.

Nothing else, not even food.

</comment><comment><USER42> Dicussed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle)

</comment><comment><USER43> The perfect office should be long enough to contain your body. It should be upholstered in something soft. It should have a strong lid to keep out vermin.

</comment><comment><USER44> Sometimes I come directly and read the comments to deduct a summary instead

</comment><comment><USER45> The author is very sympathetic to the plight of the worker, but what about bosses? Where will their job satisfaction come from if they can't control what workers put on their desks?

<comment><USER25> "Job satisfaction?" Don't you just mean "Job?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Sorry, but nothing beats working from home in your own home office. It's an environment you have complete control over.

<comment><USER47> It's very dependent on the person. I quit my office job last year and worked contracting from home for six months. It was utterly awful. My study is small, dark (north-facing, and the previous owners painted the walls mid-blue, which makes it even darker) and cluttered. I felt very isolated and ended up very depressed.

Last month, my contracting colleague and I moved into an office in a converted house. It's small (just four desks) but the ceilings are high, the walls are light, the lighting is nice and bright, and there's a south-facing window with a view all the way across the city to Arthur's Seat. I have a good office chair and a big desk to spread out over, and a cleaner comes in to hoover the floors. And I get to see humans every day, which - I was surprised to find - is a key ingredient in keeping me sane. I'm a lot happier, and a lot more productive, even though I don't have as much control over this office as over my own home.

This is just me, and I understand that people feel they need to push hard for private offices or working from home, because the default nowadays seems to be a big open plan office. However, every time I see somebody extolling their vision of the Best Way To Work, I think it's worth emphasizing that different people work differently, and what drives some people mad might be a necessary component for someone else's perfect office.

Of course, as the article points out, having the choice is the real thing that matters.

<comment><USER48> I quit my job and started freelancing last year. I redecorated my home office, and felt really satisfied with the perfect office space I'd created. A month later, I was feeling trapped, anxious, and deeply, deeply lonely -- and I'm an introvert! I'm working in a real office now, and I feel so much better. I guess it takes a certain nature to work from home, and I don't have that.

<comment><USER49> > A month later, I was feeling trapped, anxious, and deeply, deeply lonely -- > and I'm an introvert!

I'm going on 3 years working from home and I don't miss an office one bit. I don't feel trapped, anxious or lonely. I have house mates, so I get some daily socialization there. I also get out of the house at least 3 times a week specifically for social activities.

I could see where you might feel those things if you worked all day, every day and never got out of the house. That's one of the challenges when you first start working from home: You now have to manage your own time.

Then again, maybe I'm just an outlier. My idea of an ideal office is a standing desk in a garage with concrete walls and a concrete floor filled with weights, tennis rackets, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks, punching bags, etc to play with while I work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> after transitioning to 100% remote, i've come to the conclusion that the perfect office is the one you build for yourself.

corollary: commercial real estate is a ripoff.

<comment><USER51> I work remote from my team, but come into the office in this location every single day, for many reasons:

1\. I like separating work from home

2\. I like being around the people

3\. There are snacks!

4\. The desk setup is better here than at home. I live in a very small apartment, so a dedicated space isn't feasible.

5\. There are printers and paper shredders and copiers and all sorts of other supplies here. I don't want to buy all that stuff for home.

6\. The view from this building is heck of a lot cooler than the view from my rear apartment

I could probably think of more. This all adds up to a pretty nice experience.

<comment><USER52> I understand that it isn't always a choice, but in my experience (~8 years 100% remote, with a few exceptions for client site visits/local team collaboration) people who work remote often do so from some where that affords more space and a nicer view, at home.

Also of course is the Timezone benefit. Before I was taking clients directly, I worked with a remote team, with staff from basically every continent except Antarctica.

It wasn't unusual for me to be working such odd (by local standards) hours in Melbourne/Thailand that I had 90% crossover with Western Europe or North America.</comment></comment></comment>


GitHub Open Source Universal User Registration – Node.js React Redux JWT MongoDB - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/simpletut/Universal-React-Redux-Registration <comment><USER2> So tired of building these myself, thank you for this. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome!</comment></comment>


Wal-Mart Offers Linux as Windows Alternative (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://rhizome.org/community/25205/ <comment> git-pull Anyone else here remember LindowsOS (later changed its name to Linspire)?

In the early 2000's (around the time of the article), they were trying to get point and click simplicity for installing software (which even back then was abundant in Linux). I remember a few others distros, like Mandriva (Mandrake at the time) had graphical package managers. There were others.

To anyone who's curious and feels like giving old Linux distros a try, [https://old-linux.com/](https://old-linux.com/) is a good resource. Unfortunately I can't find any mirrors of repos with packages that go back to 1998 and early 2000's.

<comment><USER2> > Anyone else here remember LindowsOS...

I don't just remember, I ordered the desktop!

Linspire's attempt at low-cost did Linux a lot of harm. The desktop was under- powered, their software manager lacked too many apps and... it still suffered from dependency hell - leading to breakage.

While it looked nice, the polish wasn't there. Eventually, I found Mepis and everything just worked but I didn't have enough knowledge & (especially) time to stick with it. It was years before I attempted to go full-time Linux again. I still did lots and lots of distro-hopping though

I'm happy to report that I've been a full-time Linux user the last three years (Mint, for the curious). The entire landscape has changed enough that I have even effortlessly transitioned three users. Most users aren't heavy downloaders like me, so once they have their core apps, they're happy. It literally is click-n-play as far as usage now with the benefit of tremendous built-in hardware support when doing installs.

<comment><USER3> I worked at Lindows/Linspire so below is obviously biased.

> The desktop was under-powered

It was the first sub $200 PC, what did you expect? The PC actually sold very well.

> their software manager lacked too many apps and... it still suffered from > dependency hell - leading to breakage.

It was Debian under the hood and later Ubuntu and had every package in respective apt repo. It made available every major GUI based desktop app at the time via a graphical installer as the target user had no clue what CLI was nor "apt-get". This turned a lot of existing Linux users off but they (you) were never the target market.

Linspire also made huge strides in specifically addressing dependencies including developing a package manager called Opium ([https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~lerner/papers/opium.pdf](https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~lerner/papers/opium.pdf)). A number of these features went on to be folded directly into apt itself.

> Linspire's attempt at low-cost did Linux a lot of harm.

To the target market/user Linspire did far more good than harm. To the community, Linspire/Lindows gave back a ton. This included:

      - Financial supporter to Wine
      - Financial supporter to ResierFS (far ahead of any filesystem at the time… horrible tragedy what happened with his wife Nina)
      - Financial supporter to Debian (RIP Ian)
      - Financial supporter to Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird (ex. inline spell checking was first found in Linspire)
      - Funded gaps in applications such as NVU HTML editor
      - First sub $200 PC in retail store
      - First commercial "app store" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNR_(software))
      - Was sued for Microsoft for trademark infringement and walked away with $20 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc.)
      - Fastest Linux installer at the time by wide margin
      - Early adopter of Haskell
      - First distro to use Bittorrent for distribution
      - Funded Desktop Linux Summit
      - Funded initiative to translate major apps into 50+ languages

All told Linspire put millions per year back into the community. One can argue business model to death but over 10 years of hindsight now show that consumers simply had no appetite for commercial desktop Linux (nor do they still).

Where Linspire really fell on its face was running as root. There could have been much more elegant solutions to solve this but decision was solely outside of engineering.

<comment><USER4> IMHO, there is a market for desktop linux. My wife and my (old) mother have linux (ubuntu gnome). I provide the (remote) support. I think one of the problems of desktop linux is that it tries to much to mimic windows with its limitatiions. As an old linux user, I want network transparency. In particular, I want to be able to wake my PC from my phone, to connect to it to browse and download files, then to shut it down. Graphical remote access (like vnc) would be appreciated.

<comment><USER5> There are many, many remote desktop solutions for Windows, and they even solve the NAT piercing problem for you. How often do you use X network sessions over the internet (i.e., not on a LAN)? 15 years ago I used remote X via LAN quite a lot, but getting it to work over the internet was always a royal PITA, to the point where I stopped bothering. VNC-like approaches for Windows (CoPilot and similar) pretty much always work on the first try (well they did 5-ish years ago when I last used them - can't say for sure right now).

There are Wake On LAN Android apps, and I presume IOS too. There are many mobile torrent clients, and shell emulators. Those who can work with a CLI can set up their desktop/server/mobile integration on Windows just as easily as on Linux. Look, it's true that for some things Linux (rather, 'a Unixy OS') is easier, but that doesn't mean there's a market for desktop Linux. Those who are hardcore enough to want it, don't want to pay for it; and those who want to pay have plenty of solutions on Windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Last week I was sitting in an undergraduate lecture hall with hundreds of students. I looked back at their laptops and it was a sea of Apple logos.

We've traded one monopoly for another.

<comment><USER7> That's because MacOS is the Unix/Linux desktop done correctly. Gives both power users, and my grandmother, what they want in that environment, with a proper interface, and good software.

<comment><USER8> I think it's strange that there isn't any Linux distro yet that successfully mimics the good parts of the UI of OSX.

<comment><USER9> I think the lack of imitation is because people don't actually like OSX UI, other than people who are simply accustomed to it, or who like the idea or the fashionable commodity luxury appeal of Apple products. If people actually liked it for qualities divorced from brand or narrow experience, those of that group who had deeply held FOSS beliefs would have had any number of widely used workable imitations by now.

Apple UI is bad. The belief that it is good is largely religious and a result of branding.

<comment><USER10> Can you offer any specifics about what makes the OS X/macOS UI so bad? And is there anything you think Apple's UI does better than most other platforms?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been looking to "upgrade" my OSX laptop to Linux and on a whole have been disappointed by the hardware build quality on the Linux machines.

What I really want is a thin and light unibody aluminum frame and high density screen on a Linux machine. But since I can't find that, OS X is a nice substitute.

Edit: Thank you for the suggestions everyone.

<comment><USER12> I've got an Asus UX305C for 1,5 years now, very nice machine.

<comment><USER13> I'm assuming it didn't come with Linux installed. Which version of Linux are you running? And do any features of the laptop not working with the Linux OS?

<comment><USER14> I have one with ubuntu 16.04. The only thing that didn't work was the volume up/down keys due to some weirdness in the Asus BIOS. I changed it to be shift + Fkeys instead of fn+FKeys in the keyboard settings.

Other than that, because the Intel chipset has pretty good open source support, it's an excellent laptop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm guessing in the ensuing 14 years this offering did not continue. I wouldn't know; I'm part of the generation that swore off buying software or computers at Wal-Mart when they were selling Duke Nukem 3D with the parental control option permanently turned on.

<comment><USER16> It did continue. They're called Chromebooks now.

Granted it perverted the entire idea of Linux by limiting the user's freedom to run anything but a data-harvesting web-browser, but, semantics.

<comment><USER17> FreeBSD (as the other thread points out) brought us macOS and Linux brought us Chrome OS. Do FOSS folks lament this dramatic irony a lot?

<comment><USER18> I will admit to passive-aggressively refusing to help people fix their Macs and iPads, telling them that Apple makes a point of being closed and proprietary, and that if they want free tech support from me they should ask me for a software recommendation I'm willing and able to stand behind first.

But... I don't really care if my contributions to open-source get used in a closed-source product. I just won't buy it because you intentionally neutered my ability to fix it myself. And I'm going to raise that point if your potential customers ask me what I think of it. But I don't feel any bitterness over it that I don't also feel for stuff that's entirely proprietary to begin with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wasn't this about the same price-point as eMachines (sans Linux)?

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

</comment><comment><USER20> I bought SuSE Linux at Best Buy 15 years ago. This was before I had a fast- enough internet connection to download it. I remember there were a few other distros available as well.

</comment><comment><USER21> 15 years and Linux still has barely improved the usability for the average user.

<comment><USER22> I would argue that Xubuntu is almost grandparent-ready.

<comment><USER23> Frankly Linux is grandparent ready.

The problem i "power user" ready, in particular "media production power user" ready.

But then that group is tribal, if not religious, that makes RMS seem atheist.</comment></comment></comment>


Richard Gabriel: The Rise of "Worse is Better" - <AUTHOR> http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Added after reading an interesting article from this thread on PHP ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=436870> posted at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=437001> by <http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=kuniklo></comment>