One time when I was younger, in my late teens, I was walking through the city around 8pm. I suddenly felt rather cold, and went through the typical 15 seconds of internal grumbling. I then had an epiphany, and walked into a nearby department store to purchase a jacket. Somehow I'd never even considered that as a possibility previously.
As silly as it may seem, I use that singular point in time as the reference for when I commenced adulthood. I've got no idea if others have similar experiences (I grew up very poor, so I was probably primed against the idea of spontaneously buying something to begin with), but the contents of this list seems to be very much in the same vein.
My similar "coming of age" moment was in a hotel in Tokyo.
I had been collecting whisky from a bunch of small liquor stores and had run out of clothes to wrap my bottles in when packing them in my suitcase, so I grabbed a towel from the bathroom.
Being a fancy hotel, I saw they had a price sheet for items that "unexpectedly" went missing, and I think the towel was like $60 or something insane. When I was a kid, I never understood why anyone would pay that much for a towel, but at midnight in my hotel, with a bottle of Japanese whisky worth far more than that potentially on the line, it suddenly clicked why someone might want to do that.
I think I put the towel back and went to the local Don Quixote (open 24/7!) and bought some cheap packing material, but in that moment I definitely understood the prioritization exercise that others I this thread have talked about (how much is my time/how valuable is this thing).
A long time ago I worked on a hotel room booking website and ended up talking to a lot of hotel reception staff during the discovery phase. One of the people I spoke to told me that most of the 'stolen' things are actually just people getting blood/vomit/poop on things and being embarrassed about it so they take them home. It's not really theft in the sense of stealing for personal gain in many cases.
Before COVID, when travel was still a thing, I stayed at a hotel in St. Louis. There was a superbly comfortable and stylish bathrobe in the room which I quite enjoyed, and on the hanger was a note saying something like “Excellent robe isn’t it? Feel free to take it with you, we’ll add it to your bill no questions asked.”
I thought it was a fun take one the whole thing and had it not been for me not having any room in my luggage I would’ve taken it. If I recall correctly the note said it was somewhere in the $50-$60 range.
>was a note saying something like “Excellent robe isn’t it? Feel free to take it with you, we’ll add it to your bill no questions asked.”
Now, imagine guests being offended and not coming back to the hotel and leaving negative reviews out of spite, even if they didn't have any intention of stealing the robe.
That would make the hotel staff less snarky and rude, and more mindful about what they write on notes to guests...
Because this is the rude equivalent of the store clerk following around the aisles assuming you're a thief. A high end hotel for the rich would never dream of writing something like this -- at least not in the good days before the race to the bottom.
That's funny, I never thought it was snarky, but now that you mention it I can see how it might be interpreted as such. Passive aggressive in a way, but I never thought of it like that. Thanks for the alternate interpretation!
But also in all fairness I'm paraphrasing, I can't recall the exact wording so it may well have been formulated much better than I make it seem.
I’d always assumed they put prices on stuff to try and make it clearer to people they were stealing by taking them, rather than just “taking the free stuff”
I always assumed it was a side source of profit -- rich tourists and businessmen. If there's a price listed, I never thought of it as inappropriate, especially given the markup.
I think if my income was 2x what it was at one point, I would have taken a hotel robe under the listed price. I've had really mixed experiences buying robes at stores and on-line. You can't tell how well they'll work wet. Hotels sometimes have really nice ones, with the upside you can try them out straight out of the shower, and see how they work.
This reminds me of the realisation that you can actually park your car anywhere you want for as long as you want, some places are just more expensive than others.
I’ve heard this generalised to “when you’re poor, rules control you, when you’re rich they just set price tags on different actions.”
Realizing I was an adult happened to me in two stages. In stage one, I realized that if I wanted a Reeses peanut butter cup, I could just buy one and eat it. Nobody could tell me not to.
As I transitioned to full-time WFH from beginning of 2020, it was "I can eat steak for dinner every day if I want to". If you're going out, a decent steak would cost you over $100, so I never considered eating it as everyday food before - but buying decent steak cuts to cook at home can be much more affordable.
Just remember that being an adult is just as much about not doing things that you could do. If you just do everything because you can and it provides gratification, then you are likely still an adolescent.
And this is for things that don't have negative externalities such as the environmental damage, animal cruelty and health downsides of eating steak every day.
Depends on how do you compare it with not being born at all.
> health downsides of eating steak every day
That differs from person to person, each with his specific problems and issues — and my neurosurgeon actually have recommended me to eat more red meat. It would also be very healthy for me if I could gain some weight.
Steak houses in the US (not places like Texas Roadhouse) like Bern's in Tampa (most famous East Coast example I know of - don't spend much time in DC or NYC) or Marks Prime for a more mass produced McDonalds approach at the same concept generally cost around $100 per head for the full experience. This includes a steak, a sauce for the steak, a side, a soup, and some fancy types of bread. The whole place will usually be done up like you are dining in a side hall of the Vatican and of course you can go up to $1,000 a head easily if you start looking at their wine bottles.
Its a staple experience of the meat eating upper middle class here in the US.
>generally cost around $100 per head for the full experience (...) The whole place will usually be done up like you are dining in a side hall of the Vatican
That's not "steak houses in the US", that's a specific type of steak house for the upper middle class. I've had excellent steaks in places like the Cattlemen's Steakhouse, OK, and they were nothing like $100 per head.
So, it's not like this was the parent's only option for steak outside the house. They could have a $30-$50 fine steak experience in tons of places.
Not sure what your point is considering that I expressly noted the existence of fast food steak houses like your example in my parent comment. I mentioned the existence of places like Longhorn Steakhouse and Outback Steakhouse which are places where you can get a $20 steak. Cattleman’s is a two dollar sign on Google indicating it’s a typical fast food steakhouse restaurant like those examples above.
Most people would draw a clear line between a hamburger and fries from McDonalds for $5 and a hamburger and fries from an upscale burger place for $20. Those steakhouses you are referencing are McDonalds equivalent and every city in America has them in additional to upscale steakhouses that are 4 dollar signs on Google. It looks like Mahogony Prime Steakhouse would an example in OK. The comment I was responding to expressed disbelief at $100 steak which is a staple of the American experience (meat eaters obviously) and not at all “just for upper middle class” Americans. Giving out a steakhouse gift card for birthdays and graduations was pretty common amongst lower class families when I was growing up. Buying a $100 steak twice a month might be upper middle class behavior but buying it once or twice per year is well within all but the lowest classes ability to purchase when desired.
>considering that I expressly noted the existence of fast food steak houses like your example in my parent comment
My point was to highlight that these are high-end places that go for the $100/head, not the common steakhouse experience, and hardly required to get a decent steak, as the parent makes it appear:
"If you're going out, a decent steak would cost you over $100"
Well, no, a fancy high-end steakhouse will cost you that. You can have a decent steak for much less.
>Those steakhouses you are referencing are McDonalds equivalent
No except in the eyes of golf & country club types, $200K/year FAANG engineers, or Paris Hilton-caricatures saying you can only get a "decent froyo" at some $50/cup high end place.
I wouldn't consider Outback, or Longhorn for that matter, or places like McCormick & Schmicks or Cheesecake Factory as "fast food". They're just chain restaurants that also serve steaks.
They're not McDonalds, however, nor some kind of "McDonalds of steaks", to be considered "fast food" (a place like Sizzler buffet might be that). And there are tons of non-chain restaurants serving steaks with similar prices.
I've eaten at lots of Michelin-star restaurants in Europe and around the globe, and had $300/head bills a few times, but I don't consider restaurants with $30/$40 steaks or places like Outlook beneath me or "fast food".
It's just the rampant US-version of classism (if one think it's bad in the UK, have them wait till they talk to some upper-middle class US people).
> Well, no, a fancy high-end steakhouse will cost you that. You can have a decent steak for much less.
It depends on what you call "decent" and what's the general quality of produce in your country. There are cheaper steaks here too, but they it's just pieces of charred mediocre meat, which you wouldn't risk to order done medium rare anyway.
> It's just the rampant US-version of classism (if one think it's bad in the UK, have them wait till they talk to some upper-middle class US people).
Not that there's anything wrong with classism, but classism itself is your attitude towards people, not things. Taste in food is not and cannot be classism by definition.
>Not that there's anything wrong with classism, but classism itself is your attitude towards people, not things. Taste in food is not and cannot be classism by definition.
Of course it can. You use food and restaurant choices to signal your class. You're not an "Olive Garden peasant" for example...
Some people probably could use it for this purpose, I imagine. However, I and people I know use them to enjoy ourselves.
Besides, how exactly would you signal it and to whom? Since transition to WFH, I haven't met a single colleague of mine offline. I eat out completely alone 90% of the time, and just with my girlfriend 9% — whom are we showing off to? Each other?
>Besides, how exactly would you signal it and to whom? Since transition to WFH, I haven't met a single colleague of mine offline.
That would be a good counter-argument if I said people are doing this food signalling thing just or particularly or generally these last months.
But humanity and restaurants existed before covid/wfh, and would (I bet) exist after it. I was referring to something people do in general (and have done for centuries), not to what temporary situation they are forced because of WFH to do.
That said, even with WFH one can (and many do) flaunt their food buying habbits online, with pictures of the high class foods they stocked their fridge, their expensive deliveries, their subtle knowledge and enjoyment of expensive coffee beans for their espresso habbit, and so on...
the accusation of classism is sort of a harsh take here. I would never buy a steak from outback for the simple reason that I can buy a nicer cut from my butcher for <$20 and probably do a better job cooking it on my cheap cast iron skillet. on the rare occasion that I go out for steak, I spend as much as it costs to buy something I couldn't reasonably do at home. with steak, that's a lot of money.
I can't say it with 100% certainty, because I'm from Ireland, not the US, but I'm 90% sure you're out of touch here.
Here, you can get a good steak in a proper, table service, not fast food, not chain restaurant for the equivalent of $30-$35. $100 would be stupidly expensive, you would only pay that in the most expensive restaurants in the country.
Maybe it's a regional thing, but high end steakhouses in Texas sell their steaks at around $30-$60. You can of course find a $200 gold dusted wagyu, but those are outliers not the norm.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out! Although I have to admit, I'm always a little bit suspicious when restaurants price the steak per meal and not per 100g — it usually means that they don't let you choose the cut yourself.
Mine was my freshman year in college. I had a craving for chocolate cake one evening. My epiphany was that I could just hop in my car and go buy one. I didn’t have to answer to or explain myself to anyone. So off I went and bought a cake! My dorm roommate seemed just as enlightened at the notion and he helped me eat it.
I’m not sure I mark this as “adulthood,” but it was a strangely significant milestone in my budding independence.
Or (being it is convenient here in NJ) just driving to a diner any damn time of the day, and getting a big wedge of chocolate cake and a cup of coffee. And nothing else.
Chocolate cake and coffee for breakfast at 7:00 AM? Hell yeah! At 2:30 after the bars have closed? Why not? At 9:30 PM because you are feeling a bit 'peckish' after dinner? Sure.
One day about age 15, I realized that I like Steely Dan. And for the first time, I didn't care what my friends thought, nor what they themselves liked. I realized I could form my own tastes and preferences completely independently of everyone else.
At some point, I noticed that I can order my second drink at dinner. Previously, I thought I had to mach my drinking speed to my eating speed. That’s the moment I became an adult.
This may not resonate with Americans due to the free refills or British because in UK it’s normal to have tap water served.
In the US I felt it with the opposite: not finishing my drink. When you're young, you'll finish whatever drink is in front of you because alcohol is expensive and you don't want it to go to waste, but I remember the first time I didn't finish a beer and realizing that that was perfectly reasonable (and arguably, the more mature thing to do).
Its been helping me improve my relationship with food. I used to find it hard to make myself eat, then in recent years I've been eating too much (hmm, significant correlation with finances...). Portion control is much easier when these external learned behaviours are ignored!
I grew up being forced to eat everything in the plate. Now, as an adult, I keep doing that even though I am fully aware I don't have to. The result is that I eat much more than I should.
There's a trade off here between personal health and the resources needed to put the food on the table in front of you. Of course, the latter is mitigated if you take the leftovers with you to go.
Reminds me of a time when I was in the city with a friend.
My shoes were broken, so I said to him "I need new shoes" went in the next department store, bought a pair, threw my old ones in a trash can and wore the new shoes.
Both this and OP depend crucially on the hidden assumption that you have enough money to buy new shoes or a jacket on a whim. Depending on where you are, what kind of store it is, and how much money you have, it may be practically impossible to carry this out.
Of course, having a reasonable amount of cash on hand to enable immediate, necessary purchases is also a mark of adulthood (it means you have a decent job), so the story still works.
Its more referring to the concept of realizing there's a solution to the problem and being willing to take it. When I was younger, there was a notable amount of times where I felt cold but didn't bother getting a jacket. Of course, grabbing a jacket from a store may not be an option for a person, but I think you're generalizing every part of what they are saying too much rather than the point they're making.
Or they suddenly realized that the immediate need for the product tipped over the scale for a purchasing decision that normally would have waited X amount of time.
It's not like it's an item bought for no reason at all. (Not to mention in both instances they could go and return the item the next day)
I think the original point of the article is that plenty of adults can afford many things, yet they unnecessarily restrict themselves and inflict suffering on themselves.
I know people who are not going to break their budget by spending $10 on Uber when they are late, yet they would rather wait for a bus in the freezing cold or rain, waste time and be late.
There are also some people who don't get that Uber solves an inconveniencing problem.
Like, I have a friend who was finally convinced to take an Uber. She'd ask the driver to drop her off at the bus stop she'd usually get off at, and walk the rest of the way.
Maybe she was distrustful and did not want the driver to learn her precise home address.
It is perhaps a bit paranoid, but when trying an unknown and unusual service for the first time, not over the top, especially if she is a girl living alone.
For me, it was contactless payments. For the longest time I didn't want a contactless card, a little bit out of fear of someone being able to steal just by being close enough but mainly out of "it's such a minor convenience it's not worth asking the bank for the card". Several years go by and the non-contactless card expired, and the new one was contactless, but I still wouldn't use it.
Then one day I did, and holy shit it's the best thing ever, I'm never using cash again (this was before covid hit which has made contactless mandatory now).
I'm sure there are a few other things in my life like this, i.e. things that I'm aware of, but making stupid choices about, I'm just not aware that it's a stupid choice.
Don‘t know, it‘s just a delay, just cold and maybe just water and some wasted time. I try hard not to get into such a lifestyle. Of coure, I would walk if the distance is reasonable.
Ok, mine is kinda plain - I started a trip to a location, suddenly I didn't feel like it, and then left the bus at the nearest possible location, ate a pastry while waiting for the transport back.
I had such moment when I’ve had been living in my first own apartment for a few months already and listening to music till was really late. I was just about to go to bed, when I realized I can just stay and sleep on the couch. It was really nice and enlightening feeling, thanks for bringing this memory back!
This reminds me of an old video of Steve Jobs. His idea is simple, but it's really powerful. In short: the world is something you can change, not merely participate in.
When you grow up, you tend to get told that the world is the way it is and your life is just to live your life inside the world, try not to bash into the walls too much, try to have a nice family life, have fun, save a little money.
That’s a very limited life. Life can be much broader, once you discover one simple fact, and that is that everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use. Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.
And the minute that you understand that you can poke life and actually something will, you know if you push in, something will pop out the other side, that you can change it, you can mold it. That’s maybe the most important thing. It’s to shake off this erroneous notion that life is there and you’re just gonna live in it, versus embrace it, change it, improve it, make your mark upon it.
I think that’s very important and however, you learn that, once you learn it, you’ll want to change life and make it better, cause it’s kind of messed up, in a lot of ways. Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.
while I like the idea expressed by the quote, I don't like the overall judgemental sentiment that "if you don't mold the world around you, you live a poor version of life". It reminds me of something that could be said by a cultist person coach. Nothing wrong or worse I think with living a simple life.
It's hard not to reflect on Steve Job's quotes like that and think about how Apple manufactures it's phones. What a reality they've created for the foxcon workers.
You do know that Foxconn has over 800k employees around the world? And that they manufacture a huge amount of the electronics we all use every day.
For some reason the notion of Foxcon == Apple manufacturer has stuck in the public consciousness, mostly because it brings in the sweet sweet clicks just by having "Apple manufacturer <bad thing>" in there.
One could argue they’re just following local laws. Though it won’t make any difference because their brand carries such weight and status that I find it will be almost impossible to vote it out with our wallets. We’d better shut up and just accept the new truth from our self appointed feudal masters.
Replace “laws” with “customs” and the sentence works. The Chinese leadership doesn’t care about its citizenry as long as $$$ keeps flowing. They are hardly unique in that, of course, but they’re more blatant than others.
I honestly think that's a simplistic view that allows us in the West to feel better about how terribly we're taking care of our own people.
Just look at the U.S. handling of COVID and how there's still no universal healthcare. China did a much better job here even if you think their figures aren't exact, (most likely true, but so is the case in places like Florida etc.)
I don't think they're somehow uniquely more corrupt that here in the West, they're however much younger, (convenient how we disregard our meddling there for centuries), they're trying to match the West in as short timespan as possible and of course they're going to line up their pockets along the way, as almost everyone with enough power and access does when given the chance, sadly. But they've also massively expanded the middle class and lifted people from poverty.
Remember the U.S. had slavery and yes it is appropriate to compare that since the U.S. had the same government then than it does now, China didn't.
As China grows in strength and prosperity so do its laws become more worker friendly as it transitions from a factory for the world to a more knowledge based economy. In other words it follows a fairly standard development trajectory, just on a much shorter timeframe so the abuses are more visible and less spread out, unlike in the West. Plus there's more technology to document it all.
I'm not much into Steve Jobs, never been an Apple user, but I get the impression that Steve Jobs was a very judgmental person, also on behalf of others.
Having said that, I personally also think that it would better if the non-molding was a conscious choice, and not due to lack of thought. I personally often see people suffer due to lack of possible molding.
On a fundamental level, living any kind of life, “simple” or not, is a fruitless attempt to discover the ideal way a life should be spent. There is no single, truthful answer to that question. It is entirely possible to live a simple life and adhere to the standard Steve set here - perhaps the simplicity of your lifestyle is the thing that will change the world.
It is unhelpful to most people on two levels - firstly, about half of us are below median intelligence. Secondly, not everyone can change the world all at once. There are too many people and too few things to change for that to be feasible. By the numbers, most people are going to have to be satisfied with having no real impact.
I think you are severely underestimating the local effect an individual can have by influencing life, albeit on a smaller scale. Not everything has to be on a world-scale. In my case, I love watching movies and discussing them, but never applied that in any way to my environment – until I started a small, local film club, which has given me a real sense of having a bit of influence.
I also like the general idea of the quote and I'm against calling someone's way if life "less", but I think the value to be had is from the realization and everyone should have that realization.
> everything around you (...) was made up by people that were no smarter than you
The audacity of this guy! So he starts from the assumption that he's just as smart as everybody else that lives or has ever lived. Then he works from there.
Everyone around you who has ever lived or will ever lived are just grown up kids like you, muddling their way through life just like you.
That is up to and including (but not limited to) your Mom, your Dad, your Teachers and Professors, the Mayor, Prime Minister or President, and even the Secretary General of the United Nations!
Possibly this might even apply to people like Einstein, The Pope, and Steve Jobs, though the jury is out on that one.
I no longer agree with my previous mentality that "anyone can do it if they try" and "everyone is capable". It was an innocent, non-judgmental, perspective that I'm glad I had because it helped prevent some sort of inflated ego. But, the older I get, the more people I meet, and a mini stroke later that knocked down my IQ some very noticeable points, I've realized that I'm incredibly lucky to be above average intelligence (in certain areas). It has made life relatively easy. Having the somewhat rare perspective of experiencing an instantaneous drop in intelligence, I would never agree with you that we are all like Einstein. I firmly believe that the "obviousness" that a more intelligent mind sees cannot be learned. It's seeing things that aren't there, that others can't see at all, or take much too long to see. For this reason, I believe there is a very real difference in the range of what people are capable of. I think everyone here should be thankful for their roll of the dice.
And I'm actually coming from the other direction: I'm arguing we shouldn't put anyone too much on a pedestal.
While he definitely made some awesome contributions; in the end even Einstein was a mortal man who will have struggled with life, and he likely had his own setbacks and made his own share of mistakes just as much as anyone else.
> I'm arguing we shouldn't put anyone too much on a pedestal.
I don't want to think that I'm saying we should. I think each person can achieve great things, but only some will be able to achieve great things in the realm of theoretical physics. And some will achieve mediocrity with less effort. I don't know if that warrants a pedestal or not since one mans greatness very well could be another mans mediocrity.
I want to say that it would be nice if society would recognize and be comfortable with the innate differences in all of us, since we are all just humans with spectrum for all things related to our biology, but I don't know what that society would end up looking like.
Sure, but it depends from where you start your reasoning from. I guess my upbringing was just the opposite as that of arrogant people like Jobs. My parents taught me to assume that most things are the way they are probably because a lot of people smarter than me set them up that way. This leaves you in a perennially grateful, happy state. When you find something that does not work in an optimal way, you become sad and try to fix it for the better, but only after you have thoroughly understood how it works. How is life like for an arrogant asshole? Do they become happy only when they "gotcha" the failings of less smart people? Won't they unconsciously find errors in many things they don't understand? It must be a living hell to be like that.
I think the message to take from that was not one of Jobs’ narcissism, but that the world was shaped by ordinary people, and that you and I (or him for that matter) can do the same.
You don't have to internalize anything. Just start small with whatever cause is important to you. Try to get people to join your efforts. Set some goals or an end point where you'd feel satisfied with what you've done and can move on to something else without guilt.
Don't forget that Steve Jobs is not an all-knowing oracle. He was human, and in many ways a product of his time. His '60s hippie ideals certainly influenced Apple I's marketing and story (taking on 'the man', IBM). But in his personal life, he denied paternity of his daughter for years, well past the point where he was a multi-millionaire and could have afforded to support her.
Isn't it essencially Karl Marx XIth thesis?
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. What is crucial, however, is to change it."
Share multiple flats with multiple people (i.e. live in multiple places, but cheap)
Study 10 years.
Make your own iced tea in the fridge.
Buy food in bulk.
Drink tap water.
Create your own dishes by mixing ingredients.
Cook/fry/bake food you would usually eat raw.
Eat food raw that you would usually cook/fry/bake.
Sleep everywhere in your home.
Learn languages, instruments, or sports after you turned 30.
Drink no alcohol at a party and still have fun.
Start/stop smoking and drinking after 30.
Found a company like you would buy a game console.
Take no VC money.
Take muliple years and tries to create a good product.
Write music/give concerts for yourself or your friends only.
Don't wear shoes outside.
Don't have an opinion on a topic.
Overall:
Don't play pre-defined games in your life, but ask if they make you happy. You only have one life, make the most out of it.
Sometimes you have to play by some rules made up by other people to get into a better place, but look at them closely, it could very well be that they are more open to interpretation than they first seem.
Do those "multiple romantic partners" know about each other? If the answer is "no" then yours is a very jerky suggestion (I know "jerky" is a harsh word for this forum, but I can't come up with anything else to describe this).
I agree, that being open about that is completely key. When I was very young (1970s) I had a few female friends that I had no interest in dating, and they had no interest in dating me, but we agreed we were available to each other during times we were single and needed some sexual attention. It went both ways, and we always practiced safe sex. I would say any one of them hit on me out of need, over those few short years, as often as I hit on them. It was always discrete, and polite, and quite frankly, quite fun, because there was no romantic baggage. No expectation. Other than pleasure and release. And it made it clear to me then, that sex was as important for women as it was for men, but more fraught with risk. And if you could be cooperative on the risk (one word, condoms) and open about what the physical needs and desires were (learn how to use your hands, gentlemen) the physical aspect of it could be mutual and joyous.
Those years ended for me a long time ago, but they were important, for me, and for my partners at that time.
I've tried it, but probably I don't have that "you are done sleeping" signal. When I'm awake from "long enough" sleep (10-12hr), I'm tired and lazy. When I sleep 8 hours flat, I'm still sleepy when I get up, but I'm functioning normally after morning routines (washing, breakfast etc).
One beauty of a smart phone is just before laying down to sleep, just ask your phone to set an alarm in eight hours, and put it well out of your reach. And don't get back into bed (or the couch) when you get up to cancel the alarm. Just get moving.
I have done this when I got caught up in a really good book and read until 4:00 AM. Generally, I wake up on my own, before the alarm goes off, but it is a safety valve.
I know exactly what you are talking about. It took me months to develop a proper sleeping pattern that doesnt depend on alarms. IMO thats something you need to learn, especially when you never were used to it.
An astonishing amount of this list amounts to “spend money”, so while these things may play well here I think it’s worth pointing out that a large majority of the population is not allowed to do those things because they can’t afford to.
If you see this list only as "spend money" I think it's the perfect article for you.
The overarching point of the author is that most of his target audience (and those reading HN) are used to being thrifty and not spend money at all, even when they get older.
They fail to realize that at some point, it's worth your time to spend the X amount either because the value of investing X down the line is so great, or because the time saved by spending X is now so much greater than before, because of something changing in your life (career has progressed, valuation of free time has changed).
I definitely see this myself daily, ending up wasting few minutes each day on trivial things that add up, while it could be fixed by paying a small amount.
Or for example trying to wade through a free course to learn something, but ultimately just dropping it out of no motivation. Compared to paying for a course, which makes you more responsible s you paid for it and usually also offers more effective training.
I agree, and the spin that I would put on it is that I find the framing of this article to be particularly helpful. The sense of "wait, you can do that?" For me, it has often been the case that b I've encountered new concepts that I've never clearly thought about in my own head before, but that once I hear stated openly, are as clear as day.
For the longest time, I had not encountered a concept of "self-care" but then I started seeing that term pop up around the internet and it seemed quite obvious that it was an important thing. That might seem silly, but if your timeline for these things reaches back to the '90s, like mine does, a notion like self-care is relatively recent on the historical timeline as a familiar concept.
I've also seen this in writing, with how you handle plot and character development. Or even some things that are silly but obvious like the fact that you can just go out and go on hikes if you want, and there are tons and tons of places to do that.
I feel like there's all kinds of hidden mental blocks that you can go your whole life not knowing that you have, and I appreciate this idea of elevating the concept to its own genre and targeting it with articles such as the one posted here.
Yes, definitely. Unfortunately this all is usually buried behind heaps and heaps of people trying to sell you something that won't work (either because it just doesn't work for you or because it's a scam! Or maybe both!)
Quite a few in the list amount to "Hire someone to do some optional service for you." I mean, I know I can do all these things. Who doesn't know this? It's not that we don't know we can do these things, it just seems so wasteful to hire someone to do some thing that you (assuming you are able-bodied) can do yourself. Hire someone to "stand in line for you" or "run errands"? Are you kidding me? It's like the Anti-Frugal.
I'm a bit of a DIY obsessive, so maybe I'm just all the way on the other side of the spectrum, but I don't hire someone to do something unless I feel the task is so far outside of my comfort zone that it poses a danger to me. I usually only do it after I've tried the task myself and utterly failed. You'd be surprised what you can do yourself with just a few YouTube tutorials and a decent collection of tools. As a side effect, I've gotten pretty good at being handy around the house, managing the family's finances, repairing our cars, doing major home improvement projects including building barns and sheds, building furniture, lawn care, tree trimming, electrical, plumbing, etc. I consider developing these skills a better investment than the alternative which is perpetually needing to pay someone to do them.
DIY for its own sake is often a "penny wise, pound foolish" approach. I recently needed a new TV stand, but I didn't feel like paying even what a cheap ikea version would cost. thinking myself quite clever, I bought a bunch of cinder blocks and a piece of particle board from home depot instead. the total cost was about $12, mostly for the board. it makes a very stable platform for the TV, but it weighs at least five times as much as the cheap ikea stand. it takes four trips to move the damn thing and it leaves cinderblock dust everywhere. I regret that decision every time I move or even rearrange my room.
I also like to DIY so what you are saying makes sense to me. However I also realize that there are things I don't know how to make and I have no interest in (for me it's taxes, administrivia and co). Those things I am gladly paying somebody to do that for me as I am effectively buying free time. And someone who is not into DIY is also buying free time if they hire someone for trimming their trees.
Well my time is definitely not free; people pay lots of money for access to it.
The problem with "muh welcome to upper middle class prosperity" lists like this is it doesn't account for the management time and mental load involved in something like "Hire a researcher or expert consultant." For that matter "Cleaning services" or "Hire a graphic designer to turn your appalling sketches into ..." require significant cognitive overhead and time to hire and manage unless you or your spouse or close friends are already doing such things for your day job. If you're already doing such things for your day job you probably already thought of these things.
Some of them are pretty insane: people who need a maid to chuck their clothes into the washer and dryer, then put them away: if it takes you longer than 15 minutes a week to do this ... I have to wonder at your wardrobe. I mean, I understand some people deeply resent performing such menial tasks, or maybe they have large families, but it's not that big a job compared to feeding yourself and getting some exercise.
For myself, hiring experts to assist with my day to day life has been a fairly mixed bag, and my education, hobbies and lifestyle is such that DiY is usually the win.
> Well my time is definitely not free; people pay lots of money for access to it.
Your working time is worth money, but your free time is free. Your time is only worth money (opportunity cost) if you'd otherwise be working on some money-making opportunity.
If it's 1. Hiring someone for $25/hr to mow the lawn while I work on a contract that's making me $200/hr, I'd choose to hire the gardener. If it's 2. Hiring someone to mow the lawn while I play video games, I'm better off if I mow it myself.
I charge by the hour, so my "free time" is billable too. Focuses the mind knowing whatever you're doing when you're not working is billable hours (hence no vidya). I still mostly make my own food, coffee and wash my own clothes. Hell Paul Krugman washes his own clothes in his sink, while he's travelling, and I'm pretty sure he bills more than I do (I actually do use laundry service when I travel for work).
Anyway, maybe that's why I don't see a lot of those things on the list as desirable; if I have to spend two hours managing the graphic designer to make a chart/plot/figure, I may as well fiddle around in xfig or whatever to get it done myself.
> if it takes you longer than 15 minutes a week to do this ... I have to wonder at your wardrobe
Consider a large family with multiple children, a humid environment where towels have to be washed often or they smell, plus the safety precaution of washing outside clothes more often to eliminate any possible coronavirus, then you have the recipe for a full load of laundry almost every day. It easily adds up to way more than 15 minutes a week.
Definitely noticed that, and it is certainly a privilege to be able to trade time for money; but it is also something that many people don't stop to consider. It makes sense to be thrifty when you're younger and poorer but it can become a blind spot when things change and your time starts becoming more valuable.
Especially when it gets tangled up with moral judgments or self-image: "why order something at restaurant that you can make at home?" "what kind of cyclist can't change a flat" "only a loser has to pay to get dates" etc...
None of those things are absolute right or wrong, but it should be based on a honest assessment of the tradeoffs, not emotional associations or ingrained assumptions.
regarding: 'trading time and money'.
My simple rule has always been, if I can hire someone to do something by the hour less than what I get paid by the hour then I should do that. This is 'trading money for time'.
To offset the money spent, I should then reverse and 'trade time for money' either by increased work or training and education for an increased pay rate.
In my own experience, I've found that reasoning that way has some real downsides:
- Just because my hourly rate is $X, it doesn't follow that I can always work an additional hour to make an additional $X.
- After working 40+ hours/week doing paid work, working an additional hour at my day job to avoid doing something else does not make for a happy life. In fact, it makes life quite dull, and made me a very narrow person.
It also makes you dependent on other people. Finding the right people and matching schedules has a cost.
I can repair my motorcycle any day I choose. Delivering my motorcycle to a mechanic during office hours has a cost. Finding a good mechanic has a cost.
I also find that eating at restaurants is more time-consuming than cooking at home. I have to go there, order and wait, then head back home after.
> Just because my hourly rate is $X, it doesn't follow that I can always work an additional hour to make an additional $X.
this is a good point for salaried employees. in any case, your pre-tax hourly rate is sort of a meaningless figure for comparison. if you want to do this kind of comparison at all, you should probably think in terms of disposable income. for example, if you make $30/hr post-tax and half of your budget is fixed costs, a $30 discretionary purchase is two hours worth of work.
Your time is only worth money if you’d otherwise be working. You can’t just say, well, I make $100/hr so I will outsource any task I can that costs less!
I make a salary, not hourly, so it really doesn’t make sense for me to hire someone to do a task I can do myself. Just tossing $$$ away.
This is clearly directed at people with some amount of disposable income. Also many may value their time and money differently. I used fancyhands for a bit when I was on a grad student salary and I thought it was worth my time even then.
Last year I saw a C level exec in a mid size startup spend 20 min on hold with a credit card company to dispute some booking. I was wondering why they would not offload that.
More specifically, I think it's directed at people (like me and apparently the author) who grew up, and maybe even spent a while as an adult, without much or any disposable income, but now are lucky enough to have some. It is taking me years to unlearn habits that no longer make sense for my situation, simply because when you're poor, so much of your life revolves around optimizing for money that it takes many, many reminders that it's ok to place value on time as well.
I have a bunch of friends that grew up working class, and they still, consistently, value their own time at 0. Regardless of their actual adult income. Which means they often spend ridiculous amounts of time and effort to save tiny amounts of money.
I grew up lower middle class instead, so I have other stupid frugal habits. Growing up, my parents never, ever, ever replaced a thing that was working. The only time you were allowed to replace a thing was when it was irredeemably broken.
I know what you mean, but I've come to understand that some people subconsciously enjoy that kind of 'penny wise' behavior. My wife does a lot of things I consider to be a huge waste of time when it comes to saving small amounts of money (like making specific combinations of orders because they're a deal and so on) but they perceive it differently. It's like part hobby and part pathological addiction.
> "Growing up, my parents never, ever, ever replaced a thing that was working. The only time you were allowed to replace a thing was when it was irredeemably broken."
That just sounds like common sense to me. Why replace a washing machine that still works just fine? For some gimmicky features or a shiny modern industrial design?
I fall firmly in the camp of not replacing stuff that works, clothes that still fit and aren't worn out, anything that still serves its purpose. Obviously I will repair or modify things to the extent of my skills to keep them going, clothes and computers are what I'm best at.
My TV is a 42" LG LCD that I picked up for $20 ages ago when my company was moving to a new office building. It works perfectly, supports 1080p and the picture quality is good after the usual adjustments I would have to do on a new TV anyway. None of the new TVs I can buy offer any real tangible improvements that make them worth the additional cost.
Sure, when this TV eventually breaks, I'll probably replace it with one that's slightly larger, 50-55" would be ideal for the space I have on the wall. But there's no need to rush that upgrade.
Consumerism has broken people's brains, they're stuck in an eternal loop of trying to keep up with the Joneses, never happy with what they already have. It's unhealthy and wasteful.
Great example from yesterday for me: wife complained about our toaster oven and that it is a pain (burns food among other things) and misses an older one we had that died. Old one ~$100, current one $35. She said we will just have to wait for this one to die and then get a good one. This was a good mentality when we were pinching pennies but I make FAANG money and told her it is totally fine to toss the toaster oven. She is still chewing on that idea as it feels wasteful.
Edit: I fully agree with you on all your examples. Just wanted to give a counter example.
Just the fact that you're discussing it and not just buying a new one as a reflexive action is good. There's a good argument to be made that your current toaster oven is not fit for purpose.
My current laptop is an X220i (with upgraded RAM, SSD, WLAN and battery), which is a ~2012 vintage machine. It runs openSUSE with no issues and plays 60fps YouTube videos smoothly.
My desktop machine is 2011 vintage hardware (Phenom II X6 with 16GB RAM), upgraded piecemeal to an SSD and a Radeon RX560. It plays the games I like to play (currently GTA V and Mudrunner) in 1080p on max settings and it's obviously plenty powerful for ordinary desktop applications.
If a PC does eventually become too slow to be practical in daily use, then I would say it's no longer really fit for purpose. That happened with my old Chromebook, which couldn't even play Youtube videos smoothly after they changed the codecs. It happened with my old P4-based PC, but the person I gave it to kept using it for years for basic desktop stuff.
I just don't replace stuff for the sake of upgrading, so I buy very little new stuff and keep what I have for a long time. I prefer spending more up front for something I know will last, and based on how much use i expect out of it. I'm not going to buy a super fancy drill, since I only need to drill holes a couple of times per year, so a basic one is fine. On the other hand, I prefer walking to get around, so I buy good quality footwear that lasts and can be repaired.
while i agree on tv, switching from 8ms response time monitor to 1ms with 100% srgb coverage and proper contrast made me able to skim on text much faster.
> Growing up, my parents never, ever, ever replaced a thing that was working.
Same, but I think that's a good thing. The culture of throwing things away and buying new ones just for the fun of it is bad for the future of humanity. I only replace things that are working when I have certainty that the still-working thing can be useful to someone else.
just curious, but (how) would it be possible to offload this with a financial service like a bank or credit card company? don’t they check your identity? can you really authorize someone else to do it without sharing sensitive details with them??
(I guess the super rich can have very trusted employees with such access, or banks provide white glove service at some point, but that’s clearly different)
If you have a net worth of a few hundred thousand dollars you can engage in "private banking" services with many major banks. You will be paired with a banker who can work as your advocate, bend internal rules, and cut down the amount of time required to deal with disputes. If your card happens to be issued by that bank, I would imagine they could assist with aspects of that.
If you have substantially more money than that then you can enlist financial professionals to legally act on your behalf and settle disputes for you.
In theory the owner should have a better relationship with their bank so they don't deal with that sort of thing.
You can add a signatory to a bank account (and I'm guessing to a credit card as well). I don't know of any services that specialize in nit-picking through the use of an authorized signer however part of said hypothetical service could be to bond / insure that the secondary signer doesn't take some sort of negative action that leaves the account/owner in bad standing.
But again you're running into the ultimate question of why isn't your bank / credit card taking care of you...maybe it's because the bank / CC just make money off of the fiduciary mishaps of the owner when they don't have 20 minutes to wait on hold.
Yep. Rich people can hire experts to validate and spot check their ideas, even write articles and what not about it. I wonder how much money do I need to be able to do that. A few things in the list that cost money are worth it if done at the right time. Tutoring with the the right resource can be the best investment sometimes and of course rich people will afford more of that.
Yep, $1M is not going to attract people to do things for you just because. The $50M+ people will have people flock to do small things for you for free.
I saw it with my old boss. People would always be asking if they needed help or would just offer free stuff in hopes of getting something later.
Correlation may not be causation though. Do people flock to him because he's rich, or is he rich because people flock to him? (or ... something in between?)
I grew up not poor by world standards, but somewhat poor by Western standards. What really resonated with me was the point about buying a comfortable mattress. It wasn't the mattress in my case, but the bed I slept on. I bought it used 8 years ago. I fixed it twice. It was creaking again. It's not that I couldn't buy a new one, it's just that I was used to not buying furniture. After all it's only comfort.
Last year I bought a new bed and it improved a lot of things for me. It's simple, but if you grow up thinking about every penny you spend you get weird habits.
I relate to 100% of this. I guess I should clarify that I’m not saying it’s bad advice to people with means to say “you’re allowed to spend money to [achieve some life comfort or progress]”. And owning a nice bed is definitely one I can relate to (and when I have the disposable income again I intend to get a better mattress than the one I currently have).
I guess my objection to the article, as presented, is it’s kind of tone deaf particularly at a time when many people are financially struggling to just assert that you’re “allowed” to hire people for a long list of tasks, at a cost that many people wouldn’t even dream of being able to afford or justify.
Yes, there are certainly a few core areas where spending money can greatly improve quality of life. A solid bed and chair (if you work a desk job) are two of them.
There is an absolutely massive marketing industry out there contending for discretionary income. It is worth pointing out options which may have high utility for the buyer, but where the sell side doesn't spend billions on pumping awareness into the culture.
Not sure what Median Mortgage payment tells you without looking at health insurance payment, retirement savings, college saving for kids, college debt, auto payments etc.
I would expect a median family with median mortgage to have little money left over if they have children.
> I haven’t tried everything on this list, mainly due to cost. But you’d be surprised how cheap most of the things on this list are (especially the free ones).
It's true money can buy a lot of them, but you can barter too. E.g. make a deal with your housemate to clean the house if they'll do a few hours research for you.
So you have to spend/trade something, but (for me) it's harder to think of what's worth spending/trading for. Hence the post.
So they can just ignore the advice in the article if it doesn't apply to them. What's your point? People should only write articles from the perspective of extreme poverty?
This list links to another one in the same spirit: "How to Trade Money and Time."[1]
To be totally honest, all lists like these make me think of young male friends who went through a distinctive weird phase in their early 20s. For a period of 1-2 years, they would scour books ranging from self-help to moral philosophy in order to build a Simplistic System for Living. Maybe it had to do with getting their first engineer salaries, because a central tenet of my friends' philosophies somehow always ended up being "time and money are interchangeable."
Of course, it is naive to think that just because many things can be bought, all things can be bought, at least reasonably. And as my friends got older and acquired adult responsibilities, families, roles in the local community, they dropped their philosophical regimen and just tuned into typical affluent suburbanites.
But it's that glimmering realization that still strikes me as kind of fascinating to watch: "I can buy... things!... with money! That means I can buy... anything!"
In particular, I'd love to know what exactly the person in the post I linked to was thinking when writing this sentence:
> Spend more to go to events where you will meet exactly the people you want.
Everything that comes to my mind feels either niche or unreliable. An expensive professional conference? You're either already part of that professional community, or going to an event like that is kind of a mixed bag. Paid dating services? Maybe I don't understand that world. A fancy party where you get to mingle with VCs? That's very specific. Are there meetups where the cost of attendance is a significant filter?
My experience in this arena has been that you need serendipity, and it's hard to buy serendipity.
>For a period of 1-2 years, they would scour books ranging from self-help to moral philosophy in order to build a Simplistic System for Living. Maybe it had to do with getting their first engineer salaries, because a central tenet of my friends' philosophies somehow always ended up being "time and money are interchangeable."
I went through this too. It,s a result of pressure to Do More, Faster, which comes with that engineer salary and long work weeks.
You have 1-2 hours free per day, max, and feel an enormous pressure to do something worthwhile with that time. It,s chasing meaning while already having given away most of your time to build someone else,s meaning.
I interpreted that "Spend more to go to events" quote as being with regards to travel, rather than exorbitantly expensive meet-and-greets. If I have some kind of hobbyist interest and there's a convention for it in another country, I'd probably enjoy travelling for that and meeting people I'd never meet otherwise.
Of course that might not be the greatest advice right this moment... But generally speaking I think it's fairly sound.
> I interpreted that "Spend more to go to events" quote as being with regards to travel, rather than exorbitantly expensive meet-and-greets
On that note:
- While on vacation, buying event tickets short-notice on auction sites (if you care more about going to the event than the inflated price)
- After attending a theater performance, realizing that you can still almost make it in time to $other_event if you grab a taxi right now, grabbing the taxi, then calling the venue ahead to ask if its okay that you'll be late by 5 minutes (it was no issue, they didn't exactly start on the minute anyway).
What kinds of activities have international events, though?
- academic conferences, but these are generally not relevant to the public, and if they are relevant to you, you're already attending them because you're an academic for the sake of your career
- premier fan events like San Diego Comic Con, but most people don't go there to make friends
- trade events like the Milan Fashion Week, but, again, you
already know if you belong there
- international sports competitions, if you're a world-class athlete
- technical conferences for programmers, but in my experience these have been an extraordinarily poor value for the money as a normal attendee
The ones that sort of make some sense to me are:
- if you're a bird-watcher, you could pay to go on an international bird-watching trip to the Galapagos or something
- if you're a young and rowdy party-goer, you could travel to one of those mega beach parties in the tropics
Doesn't have to be international. It's enough if it's in the language you know. Can even be in the same country.
My little moment of enlightenment here came when I realized that I really can attend that event I was really interested in that's happening on the other side of the country. All I need is to travel. Oh, other side of the country is far and travel time will take as much as the two-day event itself? I can always fly there. Domestic air travel is a thing, and isn't that expensive (which may be obvious for people in the US; it's less obvious in Europe).
I ultimately ended up not going to that event for personal reasons, but planning it made me re-evaluate the possibilities I have, and how many of them appear once I reframe the question as "how much money am I willing to spend to get there?".
The original claim I'm investigating is that you can spend more money to meet exactly the people you want.
The point isn't that you can spend money on travel. Everyone knows how to book plane tickets. The interesting (and dubious) claim is that you can pay money to hang out with exactly the kind of people you prefer.
> Treat fines like payments
> e.g. park illegally and let yourself think of the (expected value of the) fine as a parking fee
This doesn't seem like something you're "allowed" to do. Maybe more like "able" to do, in the sense that you can violate other laws, and maybe the payoff or the risk/reward ratio makes it worthwhile. My understanding of "allow" is that it means people will accept you doing something. The existence and enforcement (like fines) of rules that prohibit doing things seems exclusive to something being "allowed".
In this context "you're allowed to" means "this didn't necessarily occur to you as part of the solution space, but it is."
For example many programmers have it in their heads that their only two activities are writing production code and staring at/thinking about log output. Sometimes it's helpful to be reminded that you are "allowed" to write scripts to analyze log output. No one is worried that they will be punished for this. But a surprising number of programmers will stare down a programming-shaped problem and fail to put two and two together.
I did something like that in college a couple times. $10 fine for parking in the wrong spot on campus, only risk was being unable to register for a parking permit the next term if you didn't pay it off. It (on the few occasions I did it) beat the alternative of a 20- to 30-minute walk due to conflicting schedules (like having a medical appointment that got me to campus after most others had arrived). They'd only ticket once as long as the car was only there for 2-3 hours. Perfect for a class, drive to lunch, park properly after. Certainly not something to do frequently, and it wasn't illegal parking, it was just not permitted parking.
It's insane that any college would be set up in such a fashion that you'd have to drive to class. (Unless I'm misunderstanding this, and you're talking about driving to school?)
I lived at home because it was cheaper (free other than yard work, housework, and doing my own laundry), campus was 3 or 4 miles away depending on which end I needed (and roads were just dangerous enough I wasn't going to cycle, tried it, didn't like the assholes throwing shit at me). Most students lived on campus, but many (including locals like me) lived off campus.
But even those who lived on campus, the furthest dorms were where I'd have had to park on those mentioned days. I did that sometimes, but it really was a 20- to 30-minute walk depending on where I was going on campus because they decided a mile long parking lot made more sense than a parking deck (later built, after I graduated).
Also it had a bus service, but it really only covered connecting the business school, psychology school, and main campus. The massive parking lot was not covered by the bus service, which didn't make sense.
It wasn't literal shit, fortunately, but it was cans. This was in south Georgia and yes. Also my experience in middle Georgia. Assholes in trucks being assholes in trucks. I'm in Colorado now and I've seen a lot of cyclists so I'm planning to test out the roads near my home in the spring. From talking to coworkers the attitude is better here.
Strangely I found when owning a smallish truck in college, strangers would apparently decide to use my truck bed as a trash bin for their various drink cans.
Very strange and annoying.
Random beer and energy drink cans would fly out on the highway.
People just have too many cans, I guess.
Maybe it's just us southern states.
If the driver in front of you loses a piece of trash from their truck bed, consider it may not even be theirs!
Well, this was obviously thrown, and on multiple occasions. I will agree that trucks get used as trash bins too much by strangers, and sometimes debris flies out. But that wasn't my experience on these occasions.
Well, that may also have been a penalty but it wasn't one I faced. The only one I knew was the risk of being unable to register your vehicle in the next term.
But some people just never registered their vehicles, which was also an option. There was no electronic tool for the ticket givers (fellow students working for the school) to look up a vehicle. So instead of towing every violation, they just gave up. I knew a guy who had accrued a couple hundred tickets by the time he graduated, car wasn't under his name (his parents) so no penalties for him (from the school) if they'd tried to find the owner, and the school never pursued his parents for it.
It was not an effective system. The only people who actually had to pay for a parking permit were those who lived on campus because their cars would be there overnight, that's when cars would be towed if they lacked a current parking sticker. (I worked or studied on campus until 10 or 11pm most nights so I was paying for a permit.)
This is actually a well known thing in psychology.
Instituting a fine can actually cause the undesired behavior to increase.
E.g. daycare adds a late pickup fee, then it becomes, "Oh well, I can <get thing done> for $20" instead of something the parent feels really guilty about, thus actually INCREASING late pickups.
I worked at the college radio station located in the on campus student center, which also had a hotel attached. It was, like all campuses, annoying to find parking / work out transportation.
Then one day I just needed to run get something, so I parked in the hotel loading zone. I ran into someone and chatted for about close to an hour and then, remembering where I parked, freaked out and ran outside.
Car was still there, no problems.
In true hacker fashion, I went and sat in the car and waited to see when someone would a campus metermaid would come along.
They never did!
And so for the next 2 years I parked there every day.
In the end I did receive 6 $25 tickets and, ingloriously, I was towed once which cost me $250.
Compared to a parking pass it was an absolute steal, and in true "things you're allowed to do" form, it helped me realize the risks of transgression are lower than you think.
He's entertaining,but a little more research would have shown that radiant toasters are still common in catering. Those conveyor-toasters in hotel restaurants are an example.
If it short circuits, the circuit breaker on that circuit will open up and cut power within a couple of milliseconds, before anything has had a chance to catch fire. Though I definitely second the sibling comment about the multimeter.
Sounds too risky to do on your own, without any activist structure behind you that can come to your help if things go south. At least prepare a lawyer contact.
Certainly you are _allowed_ -- but if it's for an economically meaningful service, like renting an apartment, the follow-on suggestion that it's "only weird if you make it weird" really fails to capture how likely it is that it _will_ change the nature of your relationship as soon as someone decides not to pay, or whatever other irreconcilable issue comes up. Just be careful when going into business in any way with people you otherwise like.
If you're procrastinating a lot I can highly recommend hiring someone to sit beside you and watch you. For me ROI was insane. 33%-50% more billable hours (currently at 5h/day), income after expenses rose by 50-66%. Nothing worked for me, to do lists, apps, pomodoro, organizers, calendars. But when someone watches me I just work. Every day I connect with that person at 9:00 AM sharp through Hangouts, share my screen and his webcam (I need to see the other person, I don't need to share mine for it to work on me) and we spend like this 8 hours a day. Unfortunately, focusmate didn't worked for me either, I'm such a good procrastinator that I was putting off making appointments ;).
It's a family member, stay at home dad with kids still young enough that need to be watched over, but old enough that you just need to be there most of the time.
I wanted to do this for a long time, but always thought that it might be expensive. Until one time my brother in law was on non-paid leave for two weeks and he was looking for anything to do. We decided to give it a go. Everyday he would sit beside me, watch Netflix for all day and just look at my screen from time to time. Productivity rose _instantly_. After a single day I was thrilled, after a week I was absolutely sure that I need to hire someone after he gets back to his old job.
Some tips: the person you're going to hire must be somewhat cheeky. They must cut through your bs, force you to explain why you're on youtube, ask you if you really need that for your work etc. Furthermore, working side by side works better than through Hangouts, Skype and others. I have multiple displays and I've started to cheat the system as vast majority of screen share apps allow you to share single screen only. We're in process on finding an app that allows one to share all displays (you might need couple extra CPU cores if you have 4-5 displays).
Focusmate is great if it works for you. For me, scheduling tasks was yet another task, so I would postpone it as well. I might be an outlier though. People should try various methods and choose whatever works for them. I don't believe there's one method that works for everyone.
I'm paying close to national minimum wage for it. I'm willing to pay more if that person becomes my personal assistant. I think you can find someone just like me (and possibly you) and have an agreement to connect every day for a whole work day and do it for free. But then there're two procrastinators quite happy to not connect for whatever silly reason, so watch out ;-)
For this community especially, there will come a time when sedentary starts to take its toll. For me, 35+. It is a royal pain in the rear to try to start a fitness program on your own and stick to it. Too many excuses and too likely to overdo it and either injure yourself or lose motivation.
Enter the personal trainer. It took me 6 months of training to get over the hump and into a self-sustaining mode. 3 days/week for 26 weeks. You don’t need elite training. If you skip on a day, you are skipping on a person. They will ensure you stay safe and motivated. Worth every penny and pays dividends for decades. Split it with a friend and get the semiprivate rate.
> Follow up many times | You won’t make people mad if you’re polite.
I am getting lots of emails from outsourcing companies. I ignore them. I find their follow up emails extremely frustrating.
"Thanks for taking the time to read this email. After I sent my previous email (See below) I had put a reminder in to check-in with you to see how things were going with the need of a Data Engineering."
"Say “I don’t know” or “I don’t have an opinion” when you don’t"
My father drove this into us as kids. It always made sense to be, and then I grew up, and realized how many times adults just make shit up to avoid looking like they don't have the answer. My in-laws are pros at this, and playing Balderdash against them is impossible as a result.
To this day, as some one that has been an engineer for 36 years, if someone asks me a question and I don't know the answer, I say "I don't know", generally followed by, "let's see where we would find that answer".
From my observations, people that don't act certain are not necessarily respectable among other people. I mean, I agree that saying "I don't know" is morally correct, but in practice, in real life, it's not the best strategy.
I think it's in that genre, but also has some fresh ideas. I actually really like this line of thinking. It seems "wrong" on the surface but really is just non-normative. If you can buy dinner for 2, you can also hire somone for a small job off fiver. One is seen as normal and the other as elitist and out of reach. I hired a genealogist once and absolutely got my money's worth and they were a world expert on records in that particular geography.
I remember I got a new job just outside of the city, my first day I got 3 fines for parking within 3 meters of a postbox, There was no yellow lines to say you could not nor was it signed. they fined me every 2 hours. cost me $1400 AUD. I never even knew this was a thing. I lived the next 3 weeks on soup. welcome to the city.
You can also contest just fines. In the US fines are used as an undemocratic, regressive tax to raise extra revenue for the government. Everyone should contest every fine so they are unprofitable.
It definitely never hurts to ask. I recently, very absent mindedly, parked in a disabled parking spot and got a $250 fine. Wrote in with my sob story and that I truly do care about this kind of thing, was only there for ten minutes during which time several of the adjacent spots were open, and of course I’m willing to pay the fine as those are the rules... they forgive the whole amount.
Not something I’d abuse, but second chances can be had.
Oh, interesting. Which country? I'll have to keep that in mind. In the <$local> highway code that I had to memorize , it's actually legal to use an unoccupied disabled parking space as a loading/unloading stop (for 10 minutes, say). You're just not allowed to leave your vehicle there -unoccupied- for an extended period of time.
More importantly: parking illegally often endangers or harms other people (e.g. by blocking fire hydrants that might be needed in an emergency, or by impeding the flow of traffic).
Considering that, then the fine should be the monetary equivalent to the worst thing that happened or could happen because of the infraction.
Parking illegally in a specific spot could result in the death of 8 people? then the fine should be 8 * value of life. the value of life is ~ $9M in the US, so the fine should be 72 million dollars.
If the firefighters need to get to a hydrant, they will get to it, car or no car. I think we should do away with fines and just let people assume the risk that if there's a fire, your car windows might be smashed to run a hose through it.
Likewise, if the car is impeding traffic, tow it out of there. The fine does nothing to fix the problem.
I’ve never understood this. The number of parking spaces that can’t be used because of fire hydrants is enormous, most of those hydrants will never be used, and it seems like a car in front of a hydrant would only be a very small delay for firefighters.
Every fire hydrant is thirty feet of unparkable space. Some streets "double up" by putting them at intersections (so it's only ten additional no-parking feet), but that's enough to fit three or four cars.
On the other hand, I'm not sure it's proven that having more parking spaces translates to better outcomes, namely less pollution caused by lowering time spent to find a parking space.
Depends on if the fine is punitive vs compensatory. If the fine is just to offset an inconvenience you’ve caused, there is no reason for it to go up with income.
Specifically, parking. If I park in an illegal place, get a fine, and mentally consider it a fee, that feels alright by me. But if I park in an illegal place with the same intention as above, and don't get a fine, I'm a jerk. It's tough to decouple those two.
Well things are way worse about this in europe than in the US. US justice system is selectively varied compared to others. Europe you just pay the flat fee. In the US you can get a little popular/street justice into it.
I appreciate how nordic countries have a somewhat income balanced fines and practices and they still have decent amount of wealth inequality (much less than US however)
Actually if you look at wealth inequality, the Gini coefficient is higher for the Netherlands and Sweden than for the US. Denmark is pretty close as well. The benefits these countries have is the better life for people at the bottom and less income inequality.
Abundant free parking as a transportation strategy has not been especially wonderful for low-income people, who among other things:
- Often don't have cars at all, and have to walk that much longer to get across all the parking between places they want to be
- Spend a large portion of their incomes on cars, maintenance, fuel, insurance etc. when they even can
- Are required to live further away from productive places by the high cost of e.g. minimum parking requirements and low density ceilings "because traffic"
- Suffer the brunt of air pollution
Parking in a central business district should probably be as much of a luxury as living in one is today, and vice versa.
Oh I agree parking is a bad strategy overall. It shouldn’t be a luxury though, we should just provide better means of public transportation in dense cities.
It’s a solved problem, look at European cities like Amsterdam, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, and many more... But in America robust public transport never gets done for many reasons including that special interests don’t want it to.
Bill Gates doesn’t care about a $200 double parking ticket, in fact it’s probably worth it for him if if saves him time. He has no incentive to abide by that rule. If you scale it with income then everyone actually has skin in the game.
He also could easily avoid the direct fine by having a driver drop him off and idle outside, or just not directly own the vehicle in question.
The point of raising the price accessing any shared asset is to optimize usage of that asset. Otherwise you end up with private enterprises like non-street parking lots eating the profits with nothing going to the rest of the people.
You're not optimizing the usage though, you're just making it so that people who cannot afford won't be able to park. Sure, if you raise the price enough more spots will be open. What purpose could that possibly serve..?
If you don't want non-street parking lots to funnel in all the profit, then you provide efficient and wide-spread public transport.
But why? The true cost of an action is usually independent of personal wealth.
If I keep my car parked in a space and the street sweep needs to miss that spot, the trash that remains has the same negative societal impact whether I'm rich or poor.
If that trash "cost" society $100, why would society subsidize a poor person to park illegally who could only afford to pay $20?
Maybe the average amount of the fine needs to be more than the value of the societal impact.
The purpose of a fine can be seen in at least two ways:
1. Provide recompense to society for the production of a negative externality.
2. Create a disincentive against the production of a negative externality.
If fines could be levied perfectly, automatically and without administration cost, then perhaps you can see the fine as #1, and set the fine at the societal cost.
But, because it costs money to enforce regulations, there's usually some sampling done: if you park illegally, you might not be caught. Because the chance of getting caught is not 100%, and because those who are not caught do not contribute their share of enforcement costs, the fines for a single infraction must be a multiple of the actual harm caused. (Assuming that can even be measured.)
Let's say the harm caused is $20 per infraction, and this is normally enough to disincentive a poor person from parking illegally. If they make a mistake and are subsequently caught, is it better for them to pay $100 (for the harm caused, plus paying for those who weren't caught), even though this may be equivalent to their family's monthly food budget?
As long as $20 fine is enough to:
- provide a strong disincentive, and
- provide recompense
... then that should be enough, no?
The rich person, for whom a $20 fine is not enough of a disincentive, should pay more ($200?). And the money raised can be used to cover negative externalities for those who weren't caught, and overall enforcement costs.
Taken seriously, this would be a very complex system and it would fail to realize its claimed potential.
It only sounds good in low resolution.
Depending on a bunch of hard questions, devils in the details, you’ll end up with dilemmae where neither option is good:
Is parking income net worth, or taxable income? Previous year or trailing? Can you deduct your charity donations before deciding what you’ll pay for parking? What about a company car; is it the company’s income or the driver’s?
We are techies, we can always build a more complicated system; it is our nature:)
A more simple system off the top of my head: you have fine modifier based on your previous year taxes. Your accountant now tells you you have a fine multiplier of 6. When the ticket comes in, it is always addressable to a given entity. Can it be gamed? Of course, just use a car registered to your broke ass cousin. Progressive fines could work just like progressive tax.
You said it wasn't clear from the context that a fine is punitive. I pointed out that context isn't necessary to determine that, as it's clear from the definition of fine.
Do you now agree that fines are punitive?
If so, do you agree that fines need to be set high enough to provide a disincentive, even if that is higher than the average negative externality created by an infraction?
astrea said "Because the fine is punitive, not cost-based.", and I said it is not clear that the fine is not cost based due to lack of context. I don't think any reasonable reading of my comments would lead anyone to believe that I ever thought fines were not punitive, and I feel like you're arguing in bad faith, so cheers.
I thought you were saying it wasn't clear that the fine is punitive. I quoted the comments I read that led me to believe that. If you think I was arguing in bad faith and/or that my reading wasn't reasonable, then that's of course your prerogative, even though I don't agree.
depends on what the fine is for. I'd guess most parking fines are simply for parking in legal paid parking without actually paying. in this case the purpose of the fine is the same as the fee itself: to increase the availability of parking. I don't see any reason to scale the fine here unless you just hate rich people.
in more serious cases (eg, blocking a fire hydrant or alley) simply towing the vehicle seems like penalty enough.
It's challenging to prove who is driving the car at the time of the fine (i.e., parking fine). Therefore, it would be difficult to tie fines to income.
Except the fine is for the car (and hence the owner), so it still works out.
An acceptable middle ground is for fines to scale with the value of a car at registration. And if you can't afford the fines, then don't lend your expensive car to people who don't know how to park.
Coming back to this... People lend their cars all the time - siblings, children, parents, etc. So you cannot pin who was driving the vehicle at the time of the fine. This is why red light cameras are a flat fee. They do not scale based on the number of tickets the car received. You would think that if someone received 30 red light cameras, it is time to increase the fee, but this is not cannot be accomplished without proving who the driver is.
>acceptable middle ground is for fines to scale with the value of a car at registration
The type of car one drives is not at all an indication of their actual finances. Many people, unfortunately, feel the need to impress others by spending money they don't have.
So then the poors won't be able to afford cheap used cars because the rich will drive up the prices because they will want to buy them as commuter shitboxes. And then the fines will scale up in reaction to that increased value. And then everyone will be worse off than we currently are.
I'll be fine, because I already own all my shitboxes, but this is just bad policy.
They need to pay it right? Just require everyone to either show their income or look up their tax info while processing the ticket. They could also off set the cost of processing the info onto the ticket it's self.
Interesting opinion: Fixed fines are inherently unfair to the poor. But prison sentences are inherently unfair to the rich. After all, if you already live in a crowded slum much like a prison cell, and your life is prison-level boring and oppressive already, then going to prison barely costs you anything. But if you live in a mansion and spend all day indulging in the finest luxuries on offer, going to prison is a massive decrease in your quality of life. (source: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif...)
Minimalism, abstention, freganism, hand me downs, barter, begging, and luck.
Make websites which work in any browser, including 25yo classics, in the spirit of the open web.
Sleep without a schedule.
Ditto kay on multiple parallel romantic partners, with a whole larger than the sum of the pieces.
Travel somewhere without any lodging plans, only a sleeping bag.
Think for yourself and don,t do unhealthy things even if they are normalized. This is a whole other list.
Maintain your health and sanity as top priority over anything else.
Abandon materialism and attachment.
Harm no living being on purpose.
Make friends with mammals, plants, insects.
Meditate any time of day for any length of time as many times as see fit.
Be effective and happy while doing all this.
Tailor your own reality based on your intent.
Not eat for 72 hours comfortably and be better off for it.
Sadly, I am seemingly not allowed to have a reasonable Web browser with a view source button and unstupid address bar on a small form factor device. I,m looking, though...
I thought it was targeted more towards the general population. I was a bit too harsh.My apologies.
The harmful bit was because I read it as though you were preaching rather than talking about intensely personal choices. With that qualification, my statement of it being harmful was unwarranted.
It,s kind of like launching a successful startup. It used to be a struggle for me as well, but having more open time has given me more opportunities to work on it.
It,s still a shitton of effort, not a walk in the park, but it,s also fun and rewarding.
Actually I started living pretty much like this after my startup sold four years ago. I saw a dramatic increase in my happiness and life satisfaction. All my friends back home complain about how everyone seems so increasingly unhappy. Karen as I understand her is a prototypical suburban soccer mom. By definition she couldn't be bohemian. I'm not sure quite what is being said here.
> Actually I started living pretty much like this after my startup sold four years ago. I saw a dramatic increase in my happiness and life satisfaction.
Wow, all that's holding back my life satisfaction is a major windfall! Thanks for the useful tip.
It was not really a silicon valley startup. I would have made 4x more at a cushy corporate gig over that time. But it was a good adventure. After, I realized that instead of paying $6000 a month for living expenses, I could restructure my life and pay just $1000. So I sold everything and left. The stress disappeared and the freedom to do what I want each day is great.
That's what I mean though, even as a wishlist you'd just come across as entitled.
The kind of person who thinks rules don't apply to them because they're 'free' but they're just blissfully inconsiderate of others.
"Don't walk on the grass." "I will quietly ignore this rule, because ME ME ME, freedom!" - Later, the groundskeeper: "I have to roll out new sod everywhere those people were stepping..."
Or can you imagine being a bank teller and trying to help this person? "Sir, I need a signature." "I don't like, DO signatures." "...Sir?" "It's like, freedom, man." "...but to execute your request..." "Get me someone else who will bend the rules for me and my freedom!"
I don’t know op, but if they don’t do paperwork, maybe it means just that. They wont use a bank due to requirements that violate their code. People can and do live without using a bank. Maybe they have a loose definition of paperwork that allows for a checking account.
Instead of using your base assumptions and ruling out what they said, ask probing questions to validate your understanding. At the end, you may just come to the same conclusion as before (but this time with data!) or you may learn something.
As for “the rules don’t apply to me,” there are many rules that really don’t apply that many folks just assume to be required. It is ok to eat breakfast for dinner for a silly example.
I agree that rule breaking should not involve pissing in someone’s cookie jar, but if you are not inconveniencing others, it seems all fair game to me.
I am entitled. I,m entitled to make my own choices, just as you are entitled to make up stories about why something is impossible or does not agree with your fears or morals.
Everyone is eager to judge you, but I'm just curious. Why xo you think it made you happier?
I'm in a similar situation, and I'd say the main contributing factor to my happiness is not having to work 40 hours a week. Everything else is just sugar on top.
I still take contracts from time to time and do other work, even just because I find it interesting. I think it made me happier because, I'm free to follow things I like and enjoy.
A few of these things tend to empower. Most of them don't.
What reliably empowers is: choose a skill and practice it constantly. So few people do this, it's a practically guaranteed route to financial, social, and intellectual security. Taking the time to do your own grocery shopping, or not, is a gating factor exactly never.
Almost all other types of human activity are weak compared to the compounding action of just doing something all the time. In the short term, activities like complaining or optimizing random chores may seem stronger. But on timescales of years they're just noise.
" A few of these things tend to empower. Most of them don't."
I agree, but empowerment is for poor people.
Just poor people have to learn a trade and have the skill in order to sell their workforce on the labor market.
I have seen many rich entrepreneurs, that just buy those skills and set up successful business. Of course, they have some skill too: being able to buy they right resources is a skill, sort off.
I once missed an overnight bus in a developing country, which was going to result in the loss of a day at my destination. After sulking for a few minutes, I posed the idea that we offer to pay someone to drive us overnight, under the suspicion that this would be surprisingly affordable.
Turns out, it was affordable, and we did it. It was, however, the scariest night of my life. I don't recommend doing this, but it was a lesson in what is possible, if I think outside the box.
Normal guy, but he didn't have the papers to drive out of his district, and so he was flooring it down the highway with lights off. We had to bribe several guards at checkpoints, and at one point, we were commandeered by paramilitary who wanted to hitch a ride to a different destination. The driver eventually managed to give them the boot, after much heated argument. We also had no common language with the driver, which added another layer to everything.
> park illegally and let yourself think of the (expected value of the) fine as a parking fee
It seems that (in San Francisco) it can be cheaper to pay the ticket fines than pay for the parking upfront like one is supposed to do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24796412
Details aside, I think it’s good the point that you can (if you’re lucky) proactively engage with the world on your own terms. Anecdotally, as a new first time home owner I’ve been recently rediscovering this fact and it has been so immensely positive for my psyche. It’s like I was playing a game where the world was 99.9% closed off and now I’m part of reality again.
Side note: this experience has also really opened my eyes to the importance and power of affordable home ownership.
When a checkout clerk asks if you have a coupon, you can reply "No, but you can give me a discount if you want". That works maybe 5 or 10% of the time. To me, that's worth the 10 seconds to say it.
Research says you might have more success with a "because" in there like "No, but you can give me a discount if you want because would appreciate to pay less."
I doubt the marginal gains from sending followups on cold emails can make or break any business, it's rude, and it's mildly illegal.
Maybe I'm just grumpy, but... if you send me a cold email, I'll either respond or delete it. Then, if the original didn't have an "unsubscribe" link, plus you follow up on it, I'll tell gmail to block you.
I did think cold email wasn’t the best example, as that tactic is overused. Though if it is extremely well targeted and personal it could make sense.
However, one thing people don’t do often enough is follow up when the other person has expressed interest. This kind of followup is usually welcome, as inertia and distraction lead to things not happening. This is especially true in commercial context. Eg someone may express strong interest in buying, get busy, drift off, then enthusiastically buy when you ping them a bit later.
Be very careful about this. Surgery in the modern age is safe, but there is always a risk, whether from the surgery itself, the anesthesia, or from infection.
Be sure that you are really sure that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Is there any service which allows you to share a personal assistant among many people? I would love to offload many of my menial tasks but I don't have enough to cover the time of a decent assistant. And anyone who is okay with sitting with their twiddling thumbs turns out to be not that good!
While I agree with the sentiment, most of the tasks I want to offload involve PII that I would not want to give to some random person. I would love a personal assistant who is able to do things like that, but I haven't seen a good model for a trustworthy one that would be cheap enough that it would still be worth hiring out for.
Definitely not gonna hand over my tax returns but other than that, I'm not generally worried about it - granted they will still know reasonable amount of detail about me, that's the price you pay I suppose. Which is why I wasn't comfortable with fancyhands and other such services- I still want ONE person to handle my stuff, and have some ability to screen them for trustworthiness.
Something missing on the list that I found out a few years ago: Hire a personal stylist to help you find what kind of clothing works for you. This is especially helpful to the stereotypical geeky male nerd like me. It helped me a lot to go to a clothing store with this person and learn what works. Friends work too but it was an epiphany for me to hire a pro for this. Money well spent that is still paying off in my ability to dress nicely.
Is this such good advice? Relationships are hard work, and can be made (or mended) given sufficient effort. But sometimes, it just doesn't work and can't be made to.
I have specifically taken devices apart to disable the LED inside. I also either put gaffer tape or black tape over the logos or use an angle grinder to clean them off.
I also remove logos and go out of my way to avoid buying things that have obnoxious not-obviously removable logos. My home is not a billboard for your products, thank you very much.
I haven’t tried everything on this list, mainly due to cost. But you’d be surprised how cheap most of the things on this list are (especially the free ones).
There certainly is something weird about the relation of the title of the blog post to its content: the content is mostly about services, a lot of which seem quite costly. I'm not saying the post doesn't make sense, but it would be good if the author added a background/motivation to it. Or maybe just if they didn't use the word "allowed".
Maybe if you try to do all those things, but a lot of these are options for the upper middle class. It'd be rich people if it said "fly in a private jet."
I live in Texas, a good chunk of the year, it would be nuts to try to live without A/C (We're not quite Death Valley, but it can get pretty hot here ...). So, I'd amend that one to:
"Open the windows and turn off the A/C"
I really like the few months a year where I can do this and not get cooked!
In aggregate, paying for all those things might chip at your disposable income and tie you to a certain lifestyle. You are only good at two things: earning money at your job, and spending it. The whole system is based on how much money you make, and that variable can change unexpectedly.
There is also a time cost to orchestrating all those services. Aligning schedules is not nearly as efficient as doing thr work yourself.
I prefer the idea of working less, spending less, and learning to do things yourself. Getting your hands dirty gives you a better appreciation for the result. It makes life more interesting and leaves you with a more diversified skillset.
Is HVAC duct cleaning necessary? The intake air ducts pre-filter can accumulate dust but that is what the filter is for. Post-filter ducts are filled with cleaned air flowing through them. What am I missing?
Floor mounted egress ducts are often covered with vents that have quarter inch gaps between each vent slot. All sorts of crap can fall in there, especially if you have children and pets.
Something that happened recently! (I am 35 :-o) : I was a frequent (~3-4 times a day , 5 mins each time) visitor to coupon sites [0] hoping to snag that elusive discount. It hit me that over the course of 1 year I might save ~$500 but I'd have to spend 30mins each day (so potentially 200 hours a year in time alone not to mention the context switching) to save ~$500. My time is worth >$2.5/hour isn't it? So, I now have consciously decided to save up the extra $500 for these sort of purchases. Totally worth it!
Just like Mr. Cvitkovic, I grew up in a very frugal environment - out of necessity. But it took me a lot of time to realize, in my adulthood, that I can now afford some tradeoffs.
Grocery delivery is big on my list. I hated, hated, hated going into malls to shop. So did my wife. So we switched to grocery delivery five or six years ago, and never looked back. And in Covid times, it is a double blessing.
Of course, it is easy to "overcorrect" and start spending too much. That is part of the process of learning, after all.
I mean, fair if you are already a millionaire, but otherwise it seems good to at least be aware of how powerful saving $20 a day in the long run can be before making this choice
As with everything, do it within reason. If you can't afford to buy lunch/dinner daily, obviously don't do it. But I think the point that the parent was trying to make was that if you don't feel like cooking one day, it's totally OK to go out for food.
During my holiday this month, I've made it a point to go for a nice lunch every few days. Yes, it costs me money, money that I could save for my future (although I don't know what I would do with the extra money), but it's enjoyable, relaxing and the food is great.
Just be aware that it's rather expensive in the long run. Getting to the restaurant and ordering also costs time. Cooking is useful, rewarding and attractive. Eating out is better enjoyed occasionally.
I love cooking occasionally. For example, I will spend a week trying to perfect a dish I just learned. I do it over and over everyday, trying different ways and failing until I make it great.
But for most of the time, I'd rather not have to do it.
>Just be aware that it's rather expensive in the long run.
True. But if your time is valuable, it's much more expensive to have to spend all that time in the kitchen.
Basically a "rich people's guide to life". A bit depressing for those of us that cannot afford most of the things described here. No, I'm not actually allowed to do any of this because I don't have enough money; thanks.
> park illegally and let yourself think of the (expected value of the) fine as a parking fee
That one made me laugh out loud. Is it a serious document or a parody of sorts? Is it mocking a "rich" people's lifestyle?
No wait, I understand the instinct, but I feel this list is less about its specific items. To me it felt helpful as an encouragement to think different or anew about things. The naive "why?" Attitude is all over it. Let your mind wander. Try to look past the authors personal perspective and you might find something for yourself. I did.
It's really worth properly doing due diligence before you commit to the donation. And if you don't have a good cushion yourself, rationally speaking, chances are you should save it. Just earmark that amount to be willed to charity upon death or extraordinary loss.
I would like to hire a physicist (probably particle physicist) to write a paper about an idea I have for a battery. It would be really great to have a verdict on it with an in depth reason of "why" and "how".
I have considered studying physics myself to answer the question (free education FTW), but won't have the time for another 3-4 years (unless I happen upon a hundred thousand euros or so to pay my living expenses during the 3-5 years of study). Paying an expert to do it seems reasonable.
You can but you have to use various tricks to make it work:
- Play back what you've written with text-to-speech software. On a Mac, you can do this with the option-escape keyboard shortcut.
- Read it out loud yourself, slowly.
- Leave at least 24 hours between drafting and proofreading, longer if possible.
- Print the text in a different font and proofread on paper, marking errors with a pen.
- Use a "focus mode" that dims everything but the sentence you're proofreading. Read through each sentence slowly and deliberately. iA Writer can do this, as can a few other text editors.
- Use tools like Grammarly, but consider what they say guidance rather than hard-and-fast rules. They are often wrong or have an overly narrow definition of correctness, but they will help you to catch typos and and errors such as repeated words.
However, depending on time and money constraints, it's often more efficient to pay someone to do it for you.
* Modify your stuff
* * Rotate your monitor to portrait
...and write a script to do this, along with rotating your drawing tablet to match (which may actually involve rotating it the other way depending on where the cable is and what works with your desk. Because poking around in the prefs with just one of monitor/tablet rotated is a major pain in the ass.
It's funny. His conclusion with the "life is cheap to save" was that he could save lives. Mine was that I don't care that much about the arbitrary life.
As silly as it may seem, I use that singular point in time as the reference for when I commenced adulthood. I've got no idea if others have similar experiences (I grew up very poor, so I was probably primed against the idea of spontaneously buying something to begin with), but the contents of this list seems to be very much in the same vein.