4 ms·

I think he is saying that the iPad is a more convenient form-factor for fueling our addiction to consuming social media (I would include other internet content

I think he is saying that the iPad is a more convenient form-factor for fueling our addiction to consuming social media (I would include other internet content on here - HN is a mild addiction for me although I would consider it to be a little more enlightened and useful than your average social media). The implication is that we are much less productive and also less aware of other more important things in life when we are addicted to social media. I wholeheartedly support any efforts to minimize its role in our daily lives.

Karunamon 15y ago
>I wholeheartedly support any efforts to minimize its role in our daily lives. While getting addicted to anything is a bad idea, isn't this a bit extreme? There's absolutely nothing wrong with social media.
- twiceaday 15y ago
  Saying "there's absolutely nothing wrong with ____" is a bad idea. The sentiment is that too much social media is bad, so he is for reducing the amount. And if things are addictive at some point it is easier to go cold turkey than to manage use, it's a much simpler rule.
- mladenkovacevic 15y ago
  I was sort of overstating for dramatic effect although that's hard to convey online. From time to time, though, I really find myself consuming more and more and producing less. I can't really tell if its getting worse but I think it's a good idea to schedule internet consumption quiet-periods every now and again.
  - unimpressive 15y ago
    One of the things I keep hearing over and over is that people are being flooded with so much crap that they can't keep up. Thats not the problem. The problem is that theres such a glut of good material that people can't keep up. If it was all crap people would ignore it. The thing is, a lot of this stuff is interesting, and thats where it gets tricky. To read all the stuff that you want to read will leave you with no time to actually do anything. But on the other hand not reading anything will stunt your ability to generate new ideas. This is the question: How much do you need to read before you've read enough that the diminishing returns are no longer worth it. Reading is sort of a thing that becomes less and less useful the more of it you do. Eventually the returns from reading become low enough that it makes more sense to actually go do something. If you've been following hacker news long enough to be sick of it you've probably hit that point.
    - oscilloscope 15y ago
      The returns from reading are completely nonlinear. If you find yourself doing cost-benefit analysis on the benefits of reading, you're doing too much cost-benefit analysis. Economic valuation of words and ideas is absurd.
      - unimpressive 15y ago
        (Disclosure: I have never taken a financial math course.) http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer-Programs-Edition/dp/0070004846/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331484569&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer-Prog... Apparently at the time of writing it's worth $34.78 on paperback. You could argue that that's the printing costs. However, if I were to copy that book with a scanner and distribute it online for a cost of $0 it would be copyright infringement. Thus the words and ideas themselves must have some form of economic value. (Or at least perceived economic value.) You can already measure one variable associated with reading: Time spent. After all, by some metrics time translates to money and vice versa. And okay, the benefits of reading are nonlinear. So instead make it a probability. What is the chance that the book I am about to read will, even in conjunction with other books, will have justified the amount of time I spent reading it? (You can probably use some subjective measures here like happiness generated from fantasy.) In the case of reading to enrich your knowledge in a particular field you ask an important subset of that question: What is the chance that this book will, even in conjunction with other books, have a significant impact on my ability to work in my chosen field versus the chance that if I went and started one of my projects right now I would succeed? Theres more than one project I have right now for which I've said "Nope, need to do more reading.".
        Karunamon 15y ago
        >However, if I were to copy that book with a scanner and distribute it online for a cost of $0 it would be copyright infringement. Thus the words and ideas themselves must have some form of economic value. (Or at least perceived economic value.) Percieved, perhaps, but keep in mind that copyright is nothing more than a government granted monopoly. There is no requirement that something have a certain value (or even positive value) for copyright to apply. After all, just because I perceive my blog to be worth $1,000,000 doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot, even though it's copyrighted ;)
- Karunamon 15y ago
  You know, this is probably the first set of downvotes I've recieved that I can point to as being plainly hypocritical. This is a social media site after all.. So I've somehow committed some kind of error for saying it's a bit extreme to want to cut the influence of social media in our daily lives?

Karunamon 15y ago

>I wholeheartedly support any efforts to minimize its role in our daily lives. While getting addicted to anything is a bad idea, isn't this a bit extreme? There's absolutely nothing wrong with social media.

twiceaday 15y ago
Saying "there's absolutely nothing wrong with ____" is a bad idea. The sentiment is that too much social media is bad, so he is for reducing the amount. And if things are addictive at some point it is easier to go cold turkey than to manage use, it's a much simpler rule.
mladenkovacevic 15y ago
I was sort of overstating for dramatic effect although that's hard to convey online. From time to time, though, I really find myself consuming more and more and producing less. I can't really tell if its getting worse but I think it's a good idea to schedule internet consumption quiet-periods every now and again.
- unimpressive 15y ago
  One of the things I keep hearing over and over is that people are being flooded with so much crap that they can't keep up. Thats not the problem. The problem is that theres such a glut of good material that people can't keep up. If it was all crap people would ignore it. The thing is, a lot of this stuff is interesting, and thats where it gets tricky. To read all the stuff that you want to read will leave you with no time to actually do anything. But on the other hand not reading anything will stunt your ability to generate new ideas. This is the question: How much do you need to read before you've read enough that the diminishing returns are no longer worth it. Reading is sort of a thing that becomes less and less useful the more of it you do. Eventually the returns from reading become low enough that it makes more sense to actually go do something. If you've been following hacker news long enough to be sick of it you've probably hit that point.
  - oscilloscope 15y ago
    The returns from reading are completely nonlinear. If you find yourself doing cost-benefit analysis on the benefits of reading, you're doing too much cost-benefit analysis. Economic valuation of words and ideas is absurd.
    - unimpressive 15y ago
      (Disclosure: I have never taken a financial math course.) http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer-Programs-Edition/dp/0070004846/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331484569&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer-Prog... Apparently at the time of writing it's worth $34.78 on paperback. You could argue that that's the printing costs. However, if I were to copy that book with a scanner and distribute it online for a cost of $0 it would be copyright infringement. Thus the words and ideas themselves must have some form of economic value. (Or at least perceived economic value.) You can already measure one variable associated with reading: Time spent. After all, by some metrics time translates to money and vice versa. And okay, the benefits of reading are nonlinear. So instead make it a probability. What is the chance that the book I am about to read will, even in conjunction with other books, will have justified the amount of time I spent reading it? (You can probably use some subjective measures here like happiness generated from fantasy.) In the case of reading to enrich your knowledge in a particular field you ask an important subset of that question: What is the chance that this book will, even in conjunction with other books, have a significant impact on my ability to work in my chosen field versus the chance that if I went and started one of my projects right now I would succeed? Theres more than one project I have right now for which I've said "Nope, need to do more reading.".
      - Karunamon 15y ago
        >However, if I were to copy that book with a scanner and distribute it online for a cost of $0 it would be copyright infringement. Thus the words and ideas themselves must have some form of economic value. (Or at least perceived economic value.) Percieved, perhaps, but keep in mind that copyright is nothing more than a government granted monopoly. There is no requirement that something have a certain value (or even positive value) for copyright to apply. After all, just because I perceive my blog to be worth $1,000,000 doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot, even though it's copyrighted ;)
Karunamon 15y ago
You know, this is probably the first set of downvotes I've recieved that I can point to as being plainly hypocritical. This is a social media site after all.. So I've somehow committed some kind of error for saying it's a bit extreme to want to cut the influence of social media in our daily lives?