Cl4rity

gdgt Live and Engadget Live are taking place tomorrow night in NYC, and it's free to attend if you register via Eventbrite (assuming it isn't sold out). You should check it out. There are a lot of cool people to meet there.

I was wondering the same myself, but at any rate, neither would pay his rent. However, I am curious because I know a few travel bloggers out there who make a decent amount of money on their blogs, as well as getting lots of trips paid for by companies like Expedia and Orbitz and other travel companies and agencies.

I don't believe it's that easy for most people.

I've never heard that quote before, and as sad as it is, it's a pretty damn good one. Honestly, prior to his suicide, I didn't really know much about Aaron Swartz, and I certainly had no idea that the U.S. prosecuted this harshly for what seems like a mild/minor crime.

No prob. I'm late in responding (busy at CES) but good stuff!

For the record, I love Boston. It's so peaceful and quiet there on non-game days! Ha! And it is a thousand times cleaner than New York City.

I really have no stance on this (in that I don't side with Aaron or the prosecutors in the case), because I don't have all the facts. Some of you may say that that is a stance, but I just don't see it that way. I am aware, however, that what I'm about to say may be considered controversial given the nature of how this case is being reported--and how it's being responded to.

Whenever we have shootings like the one in Newtown, we talk about gun control and mental health care. There is always that talk about mental health care. But when someone commits suicide, regardless of cause, those same mental health advocates are nowhere to be found. Why?

There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of people who have it worse than Aaron Swartz did, but they don't go killing themselves. Some people lose their spouses and children in house fires, along with all of their belongings. They spiral into depression, lose their jobs, go back to living with friends or family, see nothing but bleak prospects and they ultimately pull out of it. Others lose their fortunes and things they've spent their lives working for, a few of them do commit suicide, like the ones after the 2008 financial collapse, but some don't. There are people who commit crimes and know they face stiff prison sentences, like life sentences or death penalties, but they don't kill themselves.

I could go on and on about how much worse it is for people in third-world countries, for those who don't know where their food and clean water are going to come from day in and day out. I could go on about the people who are brutally bullied, day in and day out.

Many of these people, some in arguably worse condition than Aaron Swartz was in prior to his death, don't kill themselves. So when we're faced with a case like Swartz's, why are we so quick to find someone to blame?

Yes, prosecutors were overreaching and giving him hell, but they didn't kill him. He killed himself. Hell, there are people who are currently serving long or life sentences in prison who are innocent of the crimes brought against them, but they're fighting and hoping from within their cells. Many of them are not committing suicide.

All I'm trying to say is it takes a lot more than a prison sentence, 6 months or 50 years, to get most people to kill themselves. And yet hardly anyone is talking about mental health care.

Well, of course it's going to come as a big shock coming from Boston, because I don't consider Boston to be a "big city." I was born and raised in Los Angeles, I lived in San Francisco for a while, and now I live in New York City--Brooklyn, specifically. Much of what you said applies to New York, too.

I don't agree with the weather thing. I've been to Boston where it was 60 during the day and in the low 30s at night, and San Francisco will never, ever get as cold as Boston does during the winter. Hell, it doesn't even really snow in SF except for a few weird flukes in the past.

Rent, cost of living, etc. is the same in NYC, too, which is fast becoming a startup city.

Does anyone have a mirror? The site or its contents seem to be down or unavailable.

As another commenter says, it helps the bullshit detector. Why know why anything works? If we just follow advice blindly, it may do us no good.

Your line of questioning is all wrong. You said, "I would posit that there is not a single person who read that blog post and thought 'gee, I should laugh more often because it has all these health benefits!'"

Therein lies the flaw in your thinking. You don't read something like this and think you should laugh more just for the sake of laughing and its health benefits. Instead, you'd read something like that, understand WHY laughter has those benefits, and then make an effort to put yourself in situations where you'd be more relaxed and open to laughter, like hanging out with funny friends or taking a date to a comedy club.

In fact, you answered your own question: Why do we need to know why laughter improves health? Is it because laughter helps cope with stress?

BOOM. You answered your question.

Maybe that's one of the reasons, but if you dig deeper, maybe there are more. Then once you begin to understand how and why certain behaviors and situations affect our lives, you can adjust accordingly. Maybe you don't need to laugh all the time if you understand that laughter is primarily a coping or stress-reduction mechanism. Maybe you can go do other activities that have the same effects.

You need to think about this stuff differently.

It's my opinion that you can't make the assertion that the Nexus 4 is faster than the iPhone 5 by feel. Some people feel like their cars or motorcycles perform better after an oil change and a car wash, but it's psychological. Otherwise, I guess the rest of the article is interesting because it just proves that these "Why I switched" articles are never going to die for whatever reason.

In 2008: "Why I switched from BlackBerry to iPhone" In 2009: "Why I switched from iPhone to give webOS a shot" In 2010: "Why I switched to Windows Phone from iOS" In 2011: "Why I switched to Android from iPhone" In 2012: "Why I switched from X to X because it doesn't even matter anymore"

I get that it gives perspective on the differences between platforms and devices, but these pieces can only be so narrow because it's only one person's perspective.

I happen to like Eric Barker's work, so I'm going to defend it. Judging by your response, you just read the subheadings and not the supporting text that accompanied them. If you did, you'd see links to the research that supports these "generic" pieces of advice.

It's not enough to know that exercising and laughter will improve your health, but you need to know why--the stuff that Barker puts on his site or on Wired is research-based. It isn't just garbage from link bait sites like pickthebrain.com.

It seems the author either doesn't know what a humblebrag is, or he is very insecure or unhappy with his own life. Many of his examples don't seem like humblebrags at all--like the Dina Manzo example about hot weather. Really??

Secondly, perhaps the reason humblebragging is so frowned upon is because we discourage just straight up bragging. That's fine and all, but for Christ's sake sometimes we work really damn hard for what we have that we should all be allowed to brag a little every now and then. If you busted your ass building a product and you lost so much sleep over it, and the product itself rocks, wouldn't you want to brag a bit? If you bust your ass at the gym and exert enough discipline to stick through a tough diet over the course of a year, wouldn't you be tempted to show off your results?

One of the main reasons bragging is a faux pas, in my opinion, is because too many jealous and insecure people become butt hurt. That's the truth. I've never understood why you can't show off once in a while. You hit the gym really hard and diet, but if you post a photo of your results on Facebook--assuming the results are amazing (i.e. you're really ripped and you look great)--you're suddenly vain. You spend countless hours of practice and frustration over an instrument and show your results on Twitter - someone is bound to call you a show-off.

The reason I'm so tired of humblebragging is because I feel like people should just own it. Are you talented? Did you work really fucking hard for what you have or what you've accomplished? Did you suffer blood, sweat and tears to get to where you are now? Then show off a little. I encourage it. If you earned everything you have, if you've paid your dues and are now fit/successful/talented, fuck what everyone else thinks and screw all the jealousy. They're haters.

While we're at it, I'd like to clear up what a hater is: A hater is someone who is jealous and insecure and probably isn't very good at doing much. However, let's be absolutely clear on this: If your products/efforts/skills/knowledge are piss-poor or not up to snuff, the people who criticize you aren't haters, they're simply telling you the truth and you just can't accept it.

This actually isn't extremist or crazy, it's common sense. Multitasking is a myth and you really can only focus on one thing at a time. By adopting this philosophy, you'll probably get a lot more done, quickly. Once your one task or goal is accomplished with that hyper focus, you move onto the next one. It's really the best, and arguably the only way, to work. Again, our brains don't do more than one task at once with any efficiency.

First of all, this problem isn't unique to tech journalism or the Internet. Stuff like this has happened in old media several times in the past--where's the outrage for that?

Secondly, the spread of misinformation, when it does happen this quickly, is usually rectified just as quickly. The good thing about most reputable tech blogs is that updates happen quickly and often. Anything you might have accepted as fact one day might be dispelled the next.

Aside from Apple's stock tanking several years ago when Ryan Block published a news story on Engadget about delayed iPhone shipments, when was the last time anyone was hurt by this sort of misinformation, anyway?

Other factories never have any mishaps or accidents that kill humans. Nuclear reactors never melt down and hurt anyone. And so on and so forth.

"Actually you are most likely wrong."

I take it you're kidding, so I'll treat it as such. Taubes, and only Taubes, has blamed refined carbohydrates as the single and absolutely positive source for all our dietary-related maladies. Clearly, you chose to ignore the example of the professor who went on the Twinkie diet.

For 10 weeks, the professor had a "steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too." His body mass index dropped to healthy weight, his bad cholesterol went down 20% and good cholesterol went up 20%, and his triglycerides were cut by 39% -- these are not inconsiderable numbers.

Again, I'm not preaching that diet--I'd never do it myself. However, it is direct, physical proof that Gary Taubes is wrong.

Also, consider that the regions on the planet with the most centenarians (people who live to be 100 or more) are the same regions where bread, pasta and rice intake are high.

I am so sick and tired of all of these misinformed blog articles and comments about clean food versus unhealthy food. Good calories versus bad calories. Do these writers even know what a calorie is? It isn't intrinsically good or bad.

If you're eating 6,500 calories per day in lean meats, fish, nuts, vegetables and fruit, I absolutely guarantee you will become fat without rigorous physical activity.

Calories in/calories out is what matters when it comes to weight. If your concern is cholesterol or blood sugar, on the other hand, your diet and genetics play a huge role in that.

Let's not forget about the teacher who ate nothing but Twinkies and cupcakes for several weeks and lost a tremendous amount of weight and lowered his cholesterol.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...

Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone go on a Twinkie diet, but the biggest takeaway from what that professor did is that the amount of calories you consume is important when it comes to weight loss, and subsequently lowering cholesterol.

Essentially, it was hardly ever a business model, unless you consider not making any money at all an actual business.

Actually, Tom gets it right. It's called discretion. Use his public example, for instance. If you were, for example, a cross-dresser who loved wearing women's underwear - and only women's underwear - would that be tolerated by the general public if you were roaming around a mall?

"But this is who I really am, and it's how I want to portray myself in public!"

It's Google's playground, and you either play by the rules or suffer the consequences. You wouldn't berate mall cops if they had to remove offensive people from the premises.

What I loved most was Tom's handling of putting out MG's little fire: "You are a loveable renegade. :-)" and also "clearing not roaming the badlands." MG does come off as trying a little too hard to sound tough/badass on Twitter and elsewhere.

Does anyone actually trust GoDaddy's word? I didn't think so.

Biphasic and/or polyphasic sleep doesn't seem to work...even on monks who have been doing it for several years:

http://mindhacks.com/2011/11/17/the-dreams-and-hallucination...

"However, the fact that the patterns of behavior aren't random does clue you in that there are systemic factors involved, which can be analyzed and tested."

That's exactly what I was going to say.

With regards to the article, everyone can bash Penelope Trunk all they want, but the fact remains that she's right. As an entrepreneur and adviser, she is correct.

People are always complaining about the lack of women in certain fields or the gender imbalance in science and technology--there are even organizations like "Change the Ratio" trying to affect that imbalance. But here's a question no one ever asks: is it in everyone's best interest to have more women in science, technology and business?

It drives me insane when people say that the whole child-rearing argument is sexist. No, it isn't sexist. That's one major thing that separates women from men--the former have the ability to carry and give birth to children. Many women sometimes find the urge to suddenly have children, and you can't predict when or if it will happen.

When it comes to matters of the sexes, you can't ignore biology.

I was just about to reference this article. Same shit, different day.

Not only is it sensationalist, but plenty of folks are already aware of this problem. And frankly, I don't think it's that big of a problem. In fact, other group messaging apps do this if you have SMS enabled when data is unavailable.

The author of the article negates his points and attempts to protect himself by saying that all the information was based on anecdotal evidence. Well, no kidding?!

First of all, we need to determine the type of work being done here. If you're in a creative environment, maybe 60-80 hours a week won't make you more productive. However, if you worked in some kind of production facility or in manual labor, you'll be a hell of a lot more productive if you put in the time. The first time I adjusted the valves on my motorcycle, it took me over a week. I took several breaks, I wasn't very organized and I mostly felt discouraged. When I did the same thing to a new bike, it was equally challenging since the parts and process were different, but I forced myself to work at it several hours at a time. I did about three hours on a Friday night, six hours on Saturday and two to three hours on Sunday and it was done.

If we're going to take anecdotal evidence as gold here, I might as well mention that I learned complex piano pieces much faster and with greater accuracy the more time I spent on the piano. If I would have studied the music in 30-minute or 1-hour blocks, it would have taken me much longer. I tried. Instead, I could learn and memorize a piece like Chopin's Polonaise in A flat Major in just three days if I spent six or seven hours a day on it.

Everyone is different - that's my point here. Some people can work with razor-sharp focus for several hours at a time, and others can't. There's nothing wrong with that. The best you can do is learn what works best for you, then do that. Can you get more done if you put in more time? Or are you the type who can be productive for four or five straight hours so you can have the rest of the day off? Figure it out.

Lastly, I want to include something that David Baltimore, former president of Caltech, said about work and academic rigor:

"When I grew up, we worked hard, played hard and never thought to minimize our activities because of stress. Sure, people were under stress and some cracked under it, but leading a "stressful" life was honored because of the accomplishments that could be achieved by those who could handle it. Today we deify the spa, not late hours solving problems at school or work. Caltech's high-achieving faculty and students are seen as weirdos because of their intense focus, but even here, some graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are seeking a more balanced life."

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/29/opinion/oe-baltimore...

That is exactly what I was thinking! I don't care if the simple arithmetic isn't necessary in one's profession (if it's 10th grade, I'd guess that it's either Algebra 2 or Trigonometry/Pre-calc), it's still shocking to know that someone who has a B.S. degree doesn't know it.

The test-taker seems to be making excuses.

This post couldn't have come at a better time for me. While I'm not exactly working for a start-up--I'm working for a large publisher whose latest publication is almost two years old--a lot of this advice still applies. The biggest bullet point there for me is taking ownership, because it's true that things sometimes won't ever get done unless you do it yourself.

Your answer only tackles one part of the problem, and a very narrow part of it, too. If you want to return an Apple product that you bought at Best Buy, for example, it's true that you have to go back to Best Buy. But it's a process that's just as painless (or painful depending on your perspective) as doing the same at an Apple Store.

However, the case isn't true if you need to have a repair made. If you purchased a Dell computer at Best Buy, the retailer would obviously redirect you to the manufacturer. But if you purchased an Apple computer at Best Buy, you can definitely take it into an Apple Store to have it diagnosed and repaired.

You said, "I bought this thing and I just want it to work. I want to talk to someone familiar with the product. I want to talk to someone who actually cares about my feelings about the product."

You can buy an Apple product at Best Buy, Target or Wal-Mart and take it right into an Apple Store to have it serviced, so the argument that you're better off buying something at an Apple Store because they'll take care of you isn't a very good one. I bought my MacBook Air from Best Buy, and when I had a problem with the display, I took it to the Genius Bar at an Apple Store and it was fixed in a matter of minutes.