Web 2.0 Suicide Machine - Meet your Real Neighbours again - Sign out forever(suicidemachine.org)
suicidemachine.org
Web 2.0 Suicide Machine - Meet your Real Neighbours again - Sign out forever
http://suicidemachine.org/
13 comments
You should give http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone a read. Might offer some new perspective:
He has described the reduction in all the forms of in-person social intercourse upon which Americans used to found, educate, and enrich the fabric of their social lives. He believes this undermines the active civil engagement a strong democracy required from its citizens.
He has described the reduction in all the forms of in-person social intercourse upon which Americans used to found, educate, and enrich the fabric of their social lives. He believes this undermines the active civil engagement a strong democracy required from its citizens.
There was a story on NPR a few years ago about this exact phenomenon in retirement communities in Florida. Places where there was no one under the age of 55 and no kids around.
The societies quickly degenerate because no one has any incentive to invest in infrastructure beyond what they can use in the next 10-15 years. They care about the functioning of the society to the extent that it affects them directly.
The societies quickly degenerate because no one has any incentive to invest in infrastructure beyond what they can use in the next 10-15 years. They care about the functioning of the society to the extent that it affects them directly.
That's the same idea as in this David Brooks' editorial, in case anyone's interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/opinion/28brooks.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/opinion/28brooks.html
It's dangerous to get to know your neighbours -- if you don't like them, they're hard to avoid. Better to be socially close to those you can physically avoid, and socially distant from those you can't.
You and I have different definitions of dangerous. Risky might be a better word. But the right word for that sentence is probably "unpleasant" or "vexing". Dangerous is getting your hand caught in your disposal. Not being able to talk to a neighbor is like getting a piece of food caught in your disposal.
I'd say it's more dangerous to not know your neighbors. If you're ever in trouble in your neighborhood (where you might logically spend a lot of your time) you can rely upon them. If they don't know you, they might be less willing to help in a situation involving actual danger.
I'd say it's more dangerous to not know your neighbors. If you're ever in trouble in your neighborhood (where you might logically spend a lot of your time) you can rely upon them. If they don't know you, they might be less willing to help in a situation involving actual danger.
If you live in apartment complex and you and a neighbor get on bad terms, he can give noise complaints up the wazoo (not the obvious 'he was partying all night' but 'a few loud noises woke me up at 2am /unprovable types of claims) about you, get you evicted and you have a much more difficult time finding a new place to live in.
... you must have nice neighbors.
I have found this to be true during my experience living in the Bay Area as an adult for the last 23 years. In particular, although living in the Bay Area has allowed me to meet extremely wonderful people who enrich my life, I have also met many worthless people who seem to drag down everyone who gets mixed up with them. "Dangerous" is probably not the best word for getting mixed up with them: "costly" is probably better. It has been my experience that most of the "costly" relationships I have had are with neighbors and only one of the beneficial relationships I have had has been with a neighbor -- and that relationship was vastly less beneficial than many of the relationships I have has with non-neighbors.
The reason it turned out this way is not hard to explain: unless you are a landlord or are buying a house and participate in a "cohousing" venture, there is almost no way in American to choose your neigbhors, and it is difficult and expensive to put distance between yourself and a neighbor (because moving is difficult and expensive).
Note that a large part of human communication is "signalling" by which I mean making oneself appear as virtuous as possible and making oneself appear to have the character traits that people want in a friend or a coworker.
And note that the way I would signal virtue or good character traits in this conversational thread is to say that I always get along with everyone and that I love all my neighbors.
But I did not do that. Instead, I intentionally chose to risk leaving the (false, IMHO) impression that I might be hard to get along with in order to counteract what I see as the overly rosy picture painted by our society about the value of warm relationships with one's neighbors (relative to warm relationships with non-neighbors) -- and in order to give some of the younger people reading this the benefit of my life experience. (I am 49.)
It is of course often extremely beneficial to live with someone who loves you, I should add -- and that is worth going for because it is much less expensive to choose your housemates or apartment mates than to choose your neighbors.
The reason it turned out this way is not hard to explain: unless you are a landlord or are buying a house and participate in a "cohousing" venture, there is almost no way in American to choose your neigbhors, and it is difficult and expensive to put distance between yourself and a neighbor (because moving is difficult and expensive).
Note that a large part of human communication is "signalling" by which I mean making oneself appear as virtuous as possible and making oneself appear to have the character traits that people want in a friend or a coworker.
And note that the way I would signal virtue or good character traits in this conversational thread is to say that I always get along with everyone and that I love all my neighbors.
But I did not do that. Instead, I intentionally chose to risk leaving the (false, IMHO) impression that I might be hard to get along with in order to counteract what I see as the overly rosy picture painted by our society about the value of warm relationships with one's neighbors (relative to warm relationships with non-neighbors) -- and in order to give some of the younger people reading this the benefit of my life experience. (I am 49.)
It is of course often extremely beneficial to live with someone who loves you, I should add -- and that is worth going for because it is much less expensive to choose your housemates or apartment mates than to choose your neighbors.
I know you're speaking with tongue-in-cheek but there's some unsettling truth to what you say.
People can be less involved in their community if they can just escape to like-minded havens on the internet rather than fixing the real issues going on around them (see al3x's post about fleeing to Portland for reference: http://al3x.net/).
People can be less involved in their community if they can just escape to like-minded havens on the internet rather than fixing the real issues going on around them (see al3x's post about fleeing to Portland for reference: http://al3x.net/).
I went to a church on Christmas Eve last year for the carols and I found it invigorating and enlightening to talk to people who weren't 20-something grad students or professors. I worry that we're missing out on something by congregating in social and intellectual monocultures in which we are never challenged by someone that sees the world from a different viewpoint.
I think there is a lot that is lost by society's tendency to group similar people and people's natural tendency to seek out those who are similar to each other. When all the elderly people get put in retirement homes think of what is lost by those who could have benefited from the elderly person's years of experience and wisdom.
If you want to be a better entrepreneur, you are probably going to find an older entrepreneur who has some experience to teach you something, not one in your peers. Well, if you constantly surround yourself with those similar to you, how are you going to be challenged to grow as a person?
If you want to be a better entrepreneur, you are probably going to find an older entrepreneur who has some experience to teach you something, not one in your peers. Well, if you constantly surround yourself with those similar to you, how are you going to be challenged to grow as a person?
Books.
Edit: I am not trying to be snide, but you don’t actually have to talk to people to get an understanding of their viewpoint. Try reading some books from the far left and far right in the US and you will start to see how the other side thinks. Heck even tuning into Fox News, NPR, and the BBC in the same news cycle is useful.
Edit: I am not trying to be snide, but you don’t actually have to talk to people to get an understanding of their viewpoint. Try reading some books from the far left and far right in the US and you will start to see how the other side thinks. Heck even tuning into Fox News, NPR, and the BBC in the same news cycle is useful.
The problem with using only books to try and understand what people who are disagree with you think is that they aren't interactive. While reading something you disagree with, you will probably find yourself thinking "Well, what about X", and if the book doesn't explicitly address that issue you will never know what they would respond. Even worse, people tend to assume that those who disagree with them don't have an answer to their objections, rather than that the book simply doesn't address them. If you are instead talking to a (reasonably knowledgeable) person, they will be able to at least give some sort of answer to your objections.
The intersection of people with something worth saying and the people who write books is far from total.
That's true. But it's more meaningful from the societal level than the personal. As an individual looking for interesting or useful things you don't already know it's usually far more efficient to read a few books than to spend the same amount of time getting to know people outside your circle.
Now if you want to learn something that a large number of people don't already know then goes treasure hunting. But, suggesting people need to talk with a wide range of people to grow as a person is simply untrue.
Now if you want to learn something that a large number of people don't already know then goes treasure hunting. But, suggesting people need to talk with a wide range of people to grow as a person is simply untrue.
The problem with your suggestion are all the things that you don't know you don't know.
>But, suggesting people need to talk with a wide range of people to grow as a person is simply untrue.
Learning how to get along with people that are not like you is a deeply transformative, and I think valuable, experience.
>But, suggesting people need to talk with a wide range of people to grow as a person is simply untrue.
Learning how to get along with people that are not like you is a deeply transformative, and I think valuable, experience.
I thought that's what going home for the holidays was all about ;-)
Yes. I forgot about that. My family is a little odd, so I don't experience that.
jeez that conversation wouldve been so much cooler in real life.
Perhaps we need Christianity for atheists.
As a long-time San Francisco resident I found it irksome that Alex was so quick to bemoan the lack of culture to consume without showing any possible interest in creating any.
In my opinion, San Francisco is a beautiful place for creators.
In my opinion, San Francisco is a beautiful place for creators.
Well it's particularly odd because he claims he received a lot of feedback from other SFers who all see the same issues as he does and are equally fed up.
I say it's odd because the startup culture is be all about opportunism.
Is accountability/sane governance that intractable of a problem that people would rather move than meet the demand?
I say it's odd because the startup culture is be all about opportunism.
Is accountability/sane governance that intractable of a problem that people would rather move than meet the demand?
they can just escape to like-minded havens on the internet rather than fixing the real issues going on around them
For most people, the world just won't stay saved, so they begin to wonder, why keep going to the effort to save it?
For most people, the world just won't stay saved, so they begin to wonder, why keep going to the effort to save it?
I suppose the first step, then, would be to give people around you a real living example of what it means to "be the change you want to see in the world".
I think looking for a bit more leverage than that might be a better first step. There's more opportunity to improve the world via technological changes than social changes, it seems to me; huge numbers of people and organizations put a lot of effort into social change for little or no result. Henry Ford probably had as much effect on the social fabric of the US as all the civil rights workers of the 20th century (though not necessarily in the same direction, and arguably not the effect he would have preferred to have).
I don't disagree at all, and if doing more of the above is a change you would like to see in the world then it's laudable that you're doing it (if you're doing it.) The phrase that moved me to post was "the world just won't stay saved". Of course the world won't stay saved, because we're all subject to entropy and, with apologies to Chinua Achebe: Things Fall Apart.
The world is a garden and it requires constant maintenance.
Sisyphus, from greek mythology, is a metaphor for this inescapable curse. Modern man would probably decide that it's much better for the rock to be at the bottom of the hill, as it were, but that strikes me as choosing to be a part of the problem.
The world is a garden and it requires constant maintenance.
Sisyphus, from greek mythology, is a metaphor for this inescapable curse. Modern man would probably decide that it's much better for the rock to be at the bottom of the hill, as it were, but that strikes me as choosing to be a part of the problem.
Actually, the bit about the world not staying saved was a reference to the first little bit of The Incredibles. :) I think that fighting (metaphorical) entropy is worthwhile, though; I just prefer to find the most efficient means for the result, or at least a more efficient means than convincing folk to change their ways through rhetoric and example. I guess it's a bit ironic that I'm even writing this...
I'm slapping my forehead for not picking up on the reference.
Good idea.
I have a job and bathe regularly. Yet I walk through the ghetto every day, and find that folks there are still unemployed and smelly. They're just not following my example like they should!
I have a job and bathe regularly. Yet I walk through the ghetto every day, and find that folks there are still unemployed and smelly. They're just not following my example like they should!
I was thinking more along the lines of starting your tech company in a city whose cup doesn't overflow with them and creating jobs locally rather than having all of the tech talent in america move to the bay area.
Moving some of the folks on the right side of the bell curve to a new city won't necessarily help out the folks on the left side. The Bay Area has lots of tech jobs AND unemployed and smelly people.
I've actually been joking about starting a 'move to the internet' movement.
I consider myself to be a citizen of the United States of Internet. Or perhaps that should be Disparate States of Internet, given what China, Iran, and Australia are doing to it.
This is what startup hubs are all about.
My criteria for a place to live definitely include "there are fellow HN readers within a ten-mile radius".
My criteria for a place to live definitely include "there are fellow HN readers within a ten-mile radius".
Reminds me of this, which also surfaced recently:
http://www.seppukoo.com/
Also strangely well-designed for a simple novelty site.
http://www.seppukoo.com/
Also strangely well-designed for a simple novelty site.
Good concept but, personally, I find the overdone suicide logos and graphics unsettling.
Perhaps there are people in the world who don't think this site is utterly tone-deaf. I'm not one of them.
Matters of taste aside, here's a factual prediction: This site will disappear in a flurry of bad press and (perhaps) legal action the first time an actual suicidal person couples the use of the site with an actual suicide attempt.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I'll make another prediction: My first prediction probably won't come to pass, because it would require the site to actually have a statistically significant number of users. And I doubt the effectiveness of the apparent marketing plan. The stench of death doesn't sell very well. Especially when the second step of your viral loop is "encourage your customers to cut off casual contact with any other potential customers". ;)
Matters of taste aside, here's a factual prediction: This site will disappear in a flurry of bad press and (perhaps) legal action the first time an actual suicidal person couples the use of the site with an actual suicide attempt.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I'll make another prediction: My first prediction probably won't come to pass, because it would require the site to actually have a statistically significant number of users. And I doubt the effectiveness of the apparent marketing plan. The stench of death doesn't sell very well. Especially when the second step of your viral loop is "encourage your customers to cut off casual contact with any other potential customers". ;)
Very unsettling. I don't understand how this topic is a punchline to so many people.
Utterly tactless, but I'm not sure how much you'd be able to muster with a url like that.
Utterly tactless, but I'm not sure how much you'd be able to muster with a url like that.
That site is incredibly well put together. Makes me jealous that someone else's joke is better looking than my own real sites.
I really have to disagree on that one, as a designer. I see a lot of mistakes:
- Inconsistent font usage.
- The page isn't centered properly, it's slightly to the left.
- Light blue on white text.
- Improper whitespace usage on the "Faster, Safer, Smarter, Better" section.
- The social network icons, the monitor, and the trophy are all aliased horribly. Someone used the wrong type of anti-aliasing when resizing them.
- Pink.
Listen, a designer spent 1 month painstakingly criticizing and pulling apart smashing magazine (a very famous designer/developer's blog) website's new design: http://www.awayback.com/smashing-magazine-realigned/
Designers are like that. Give them enough time they will find some mistakes in your work and brag about it. As a designer/developer I think I speak for myself and most design community.
Chances are, some designer out there finds your favorite, best work; repulsive and ugly. I can bet on it.
Designers are like that. Give them enough time they will find some mistakes in your work and brag about it. As a designer/developer I think I speak for myself and most design community.
Chances are, some designer out there finds your favorite, best work; repulsive and ugly. I can bet on it.
Tim's criticisms weren't at all small nitpicks. That's Design 101. I'm not a designer and I noticed the same things he did.
While it's true that designers thrive in critique, this simply was not an impressively-designed site.
While it's true that designers thrive in critique, this simply was not an impressively-designed site.
The people who feel the need to do this have missed the point of the sites in the first place.
I have an account on all three services. All of my friends on there are people I have physically met and like as people (or in the case of LinkedIn, business contacts). The only site I'd probably be fine with losing is MySpace, as it was fine before Facebook went public, but after that all of my friends moved to Facebook, making MySpace redundant.
I think the real issue is people who treat it like some soft of demented game of Pokemon. You don't have to "catch 'em all" and get everyone on the site to "friend" you. You don't win.
I have an account on all three services. All of my friends on there are people I have physically met and like as people (or in the case of LinkedIn, business contacts). The only site I'd probably be fine with losing is MySpace, as it was fine before Facebook went public, but after that all of my friends moved to Facebook, making MySpace redundant.
I think the real issue is people who treat it like some soft of demented game of Pokemon. You don't have to "catch 'em all" and get everyone on the site to "friend" you. You don't win.
Their busy message with - consider suicide at a later moment - is quite hilarious
"It seems like that all of our machines are currently busy!
Please consider suicide at a later moment and accept our apologies!"
"It seems like that all of our machines are currently busy!
Please consider suicide at a later moment and accept our apologies!"
Your real neighbors are all on the internet, too busy to talk to you anyway.
We need the reverse ... spam your social networks with your real-world suicide, as explored at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=831537.
Here's the quickest way to delete your account in China (only if your account has absolutely no link with your real identity):
Use a proxy, and post anti-government stuff.
Use a proxy, and post anti-government stuff.
[deleted]
[deleted]
My neighbours in opinion space are more interesting than my neighbours in physical space.
I was going to try it, but it looks like too many people are killing their myspaces alread.
"Myspace service currently unavailable, due to massive requests!!"
"Myspace service currently unavailable, due to massive requests!!"
God no. That's why the Internet is so awesome - we're not limited to the people we unfortunately find ourselves surrounded by in "real life." Still, good joke ;-)