6 ms·

A world where we frown upon anyone having anything important to them outside of their employer is a sad world to live in indeed.

by Chinjut 12y ago

EliRivers 12y ago
Which is entirely the whole point of the article; welcome to the US tech scene :)
EC1 12y ago
It's more about him getting special privilege to leave early because of his obligation to his delusion. If he gets time off, shouldn't others?
- dang 12y ago
  > because of his obligation to his delusion Religious flamewars are not welcome on Hacker News.
  - EC1 12y ago
    Not starting a flamewar. If you can't empirically prove it exists then it resides in your head, which is a delusion. Who's to say I can't get days off because my own flavour of delusion I concocted? That would just be branded mental illness, but since everyone is "in on it", it's OK.
    - nostrademons 12y ago
      By that standard, love, beauty, great products, and yes, money are all delusions too. So why are you even working? All I see are bits and bytes in a bank's computer system; why do you care so much about them? I'd hope that we have the empathy to recognize that people should be able to indulge the things that are special to them. That's what celebrating individuality is about, right? As long as they're also productive in the things that matter to us, it harms nobody.
      - EC1 12y ago
        Sorry but I believe it is mental illness.
        nostrademons 12y ago
        That belief exists only in your head; why should I care about your delusions? (Sorry I'm giving you a hard time, but I'm trying to make a point that took me a long time to learn but drastically improved my effectiveness as a human being. Things that exist inside other peoples' heads are every bit as real as things that exist in your head. And as far as can be empirically proven, everything exists inside somebody's head. We have this notion of objective reality because it's convenient to have it and it works most of the time - as Peter Norvig says, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." But objective reality itself exists inside our heads, and when - empirically - clinging to reality gets worse outcomes than bending reality to accommodate the people we interact with, why bother?)
        EC1 12y ago
        Philosophical masturbation.
        dang 12y ago
        I'm not sure what to chastise you for more: troll-feeding, or misattributing George Box. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box (I'm joking.)
        etherael 12y ago
        I really like your thinking here, however I'd point out that the converse could just as easily be argued as well. That by embracing things like religion, we're actually getting worse outcomes, and therefore we should not do it.
        nostrademons 12y ago
        The difference is between collective "we" and individual "we". I believe that I would get a worse outcome by embracing religion, and so I don't. I've always found science to be a much better model of reality (the two are not mutually exclusive, but in my personal belief system, I've always had one but not the other). But as for "we", as in everyone else? It's not for me to say. I can't make the judgment for someone else that they're better off changing their belief system. I can explain mine, I can offer a different perspective, but it's not like I can reach into their head and twist their thoughts around.

A world where we frown upon anyone having anything important to them outside of their employer is a sad world to live in indeed.

by Chinjut 12y ago

A world where we frown upon anyone having anything important to them outside of their employer is a sad world to live in indeed.

EliRivers 12y ago

Which is entirely the whole point of the article; welcome to the US tech scene :)

EC1 12y ago

It's more about him getting special privilege to leave early because of his obligation to his delusion. If he gets time off, shouldn't others?

dang 12y ago
> because of his obligation to his delusion Religious flamewars are not welcome on Hacker News.
- EC1 12y ago
  Not starting a flamewar. If you can't empirically prove it exists then it resides in your head, which is a delusion. Who's to say I can't get days off because my own flavour of delusion I concocted? That would just be branded mental illness, but since everyone is "in on it", it's OK.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    By that standard, love, beauty, great products, and yes, money are all delusions too. So why are you even working? All I see are bits and bytes in a bank's computer system; why do you care so much about them? I'd hope that we have the empathy to recognize that people should be able to indulge the things that are special to them. That's what celebrating individuality is about, right? As long as they're also productive in the things that matter to us, it harms nobody.
    - EC1 12y ago
      Sorry but I believe it is mental illness.
      - nostrademons 12y ago
        That belief exists only in your head; why should I care about your delusions? (Sorry I'm giving you a hard time, but I'm trying to make a point that took me a long time to learn but drastically improved my effectiveness as a human being. Things that exist inside other peoples' heads are every bit as real as things that exist in your head. And as far as can be empirically proven, everything exists inside somebody's head. We have this notion of objective reality because it's convenient to have it and it works most of the time - as Peter Norvig says, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." But objective reality itself exists inside our heads, and when - empirically - clinging to reality gets worse outcomes than bending reality to accommodate the people we interact with, why bother?)
        EC1 12y ago
        Philosophical masturbation.
        dang 12y ago
        I'm not sure what to chastise you for more: troll-feeding, or misattributing George Box. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box (I'm joking.)
        etherael 12y ago
        I really like your thinking here, however I'd point out that the converse could just as easily be argued as well. That by embracing things like religion, we're actually getting worse outcomes, and therefore we should not do it.
        nostrademons 12y ago
        The difference is between collective "we" and individual "we". I believe that I would get a worse outcome by embracing religion, and so I don't. I've always found science to be a much better model of reality (the two are not mutually exclusive, but in my personal belief system, I've always had one but not the other). But as for "we", as in everyone else? It's not for me to say. I can't make the judgment for someone else that they're better off changing their belief system. I can explain mine, I can offer a different perspective, but it's not like I can reach into their head and twist their thoughts around.