Well, thanks for putting words in my mouth, but your rewriting is not synonymous with what I wrote. If I had wanted to write what you wrote, I would have done so. For example, "a perspective from the other side", implies opposing viewpoints A vs B, whereas "nuance" implies a stance accepting parts of A but balancing or supplementing them with qualifiers drawn from B.
As for "bilge", contrary to your pleasant assumption I am trying to show off how many books I read, I probably chose that word because it was at the top of my head, having been widely in the news here this week: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7608422/Genera...
Ironically, this notion that you can freely swap NEAR-synonyms with no change of implications and associations of what is meant is a rather maths-y perspective. Someone with more of a liberal arts background would be more aware how far from the truth is. Human natural language, English especially, is not like simultaneous equations where terms can be freely reduced with no loss of accuracy. The range of "big words" and "small words" signify similar but not identical concepts... but of course, if you follow the thoughts of my other responder, the work of Saussure, Derrida et al on signifiers and signified didn't involve any abstract thinking, just reading and regurgitation.
I do admit that my initial post was perhaps rather bullishly worded, and in that sense, the downvotes perhaps deserved. However, it is a bit ironic how hostile a reaction from HN members it recieved, considered it was intended as a compliment to HN members. What I was trying to get at was that the linked piece was essentially a very cheap shot - a cheap shot understood by reading the headline alone, at that, with the rest of the text offering little or no further insight or interest. On the other hand, the comments of (for example) cousin_it, jlc, olefoo were far more intelligent.
Few things are more tedious than reading science majors endlessly, smugly belittle arts subjects. "Oh ho ho, something I don't understand and haven't done and probably couldn't do, they must be idiots, let's constantly mock them". I saw quite enough of that on slashdot so was very disappointed to see this sort of bilge get so many upvotes here. Thankfully some of the comments, at least, show a more nuanced grasp of reality.
Outside of forever hypothetical situations devised on messageboards, where a night out can reasonably be limited to "(cheapest) plate of food and 2 drinks", and ends up being more like "plate of food, ooh and those deserts look good, and that was 3 drinks during the meal to wash it down, and now for another 11 drinks, and buying a round for those guys I know from... er... somewhere... and those drinks for those nice girls I thought I had a chance with... and the entrance for the club, and the cloakroom, and some more drinks, and a kebab, and oh screw the nightbus let's get a taxi", it's pretty hard having a night out in London for less than £100.
Points 9, 10, 17, (at least) have pretty much nothing specifically to do with reddit but could be said of pretty much any online community.
Also, this is from 2006, and while I don't wish to suggest simply being a few years old automatically and inherently makes an article worthless, in this case it doesn't exactly help. An up-to-date feature on reddit flaws would probably include "is a SFW 4chan".
Overall a poor piece, feels like it was cobbled together as an excuse to drive traffic to the "Download mp3s Faster than limewire free!" section.
I've also recently been feeling some internet fatigue.
It's occured to me that the internet encourages* bite-size pieces of content.
I sit on reddit and complain that it's getting too 4chan, with stupid lolcats, cartoons, FMLs, short bloggettes, and so on. Cheap, quick, unintellectual nuggets. But with some harsher self-observation, I realise that as I scan down the list I go for the cheap and quick nuggets. I open a pic, smirk, close tab, next. I open an 8 page article and think, crikey, tl;dr, close without reading. I open a 90 second youtube and will watch it, I open a 14 minute youtube and think "oh I can't be bothered to devote that long to this". Whereas in "real life" I will happily read a lengthy national geographic article in one sitting, and television tends to come in minimum 30 minute chunks.
I started reading the Baroque Cycle last month (not done yet, no spoilers please!), after Anathem before that, and it struck me how these 17th century RS people didn't have flushing toilets yet they were dedicated to knowing at least the fundamentals of philosophy, logic, maths, biology, chemisty, physics, rhetoric, etc as part of being a standard 'decently educated' person. I have a degree, too, and live in a pampered world of extreme convenience, but I have only the vaguest pop science grasp of E=mc^2, linguistic structuralism, the socratic method or whatever else. I ask myself why I'm letting myself sit on forums and get depressed by the deja vu of ever-repeating ill-informed / tabloid-level soundbites and debates, about, say, Iraq, instead of reading a serious book on the sociopolitical history of the middle east. Why am I skimming yet another "top 5 shiny css background examples" instead of thoroughly perusing a textbook of fundamental design principles? Why do I find myself link-surfing my way around WP to a biography of Russell, but never tackling Principia Mathematica?
So I'm now hoping to consciously curb my "just one more F5..." time-frittering, and spend more time bringing myself up to speed on all aspects of a well-rounded intellectual the old fashioned way: books.
* I say "encourage" rather than "force" because I am well aware the syndrome I describe comes down to personal choice and the reality is that it's my fault and not the internet's fault, so please don't argue with me on that basis, I know that. I know that in theory the internet, being an information-delivery-and-exchange medium, is capable of HELPING me in 'serious' self-improvement. I know that, for example, TED talks are highly regarded by many people as a means of engaging themselves with new areas of knowledge and learning. I can only speak for myself in saying I don't like videos, I don't seem to do well at reading long articles on screen, and I don't seem to be able to maintain attention span on the internet without ctrl-tabbing every 30 seconds. Much better for me personally to step away from the computer, recline on my sofa or bed and focus on some dead trees.
The article does actually cover your serious point.
> Indeed, it may be more useful in a "top rated" list to display those items with the highest number of positive ratings per page view, download, or purchase, rather than positive ratings per rating. Many people who find something mediocre will not bother to rate it at all; the act of viewing or purchasing something and declining to rate it contains useful information about that item's quality.
For a fairly but not horribly austere lifestyle, you're looking at ~£20k GBP to get by.
By this I mean you have a place to live somewhere in a fairly unfashionable/average zone 2 or 3 area, a place which is not that big or plush, but not a rat-infested crack den either. You share it with at least one, perhaps a few other people. You can afford all the basics of food, heating etc, plus a small amount of "luxuries" (go out for a few drinks here and there, keep yourself in clothes that arent falling apart, a few books/cds/dvds, that sort of thing) but you'll be taking the bus rather than a taxi, you'll be drinking £5 wines rather than £50 wines, you'll entertain yourself with a free museum visit rather than a pricy theatre ticket, etc. You won't starve but you will find yourself turning down social invitations due to lack of cash.
If you want to live in zone 1 and/or an upmarket part of town and/or on your own, eat out / go drinking / go to the cinema / whatever regularly (eg more than once weekly), go on foreign holidays, buy shiny new tech gadgets, dress in designer label clothing, etc, then obviously more, and more, and more income is required... With no limit!
It seems that 2600USD pcm (I assume you mean USD) is not so far away from what I earn. I find myself living a lifestyle I would consider comfortable; however I naturally lean more towards the former paragraph than the latter. My current lifestyle is certainly more free-spending than the first paragraph (for example, I can afford taxis and going out often without ever seeming skint) - but it is still nowhere near the second paragraph - however I have little to no interest in world travel, designer fashion, plasma tvs and the like and therefore I do not miss them. So it depends on your lifestyle desires.
I do not know anything about costs of companies. As for health insurance -- I cannot vouch for this point 100% but I'm fairly sure this should be a non-issue: as an EU citizen I believe once you have paid the normal income tax and National Insurance the same as I do, you would be entitled to NHS healthcare.
I hope this helps. Feel free to follow up with any further questions about London life you may have.
As for "bilge", contrary to your pleasant assumption I am trying to show off how many books I read, I probably chose that word because it was at the top of my head, having been widely in the news here this week: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7608422/Genera...
Ironically, this notion that you can freely swap NEAR-synonyms with no change of implications and associations of what is meant is a rather maths-y perspective. Someone with more of a liberal arts background would be more aware how far from the truth is. Human natural language, English especially, is not like simultaneous equations where terms can be freely reduced with no loss of accuracy. The range of "big words" and "small words" signify similar but not identical concepts... but of course, if you follow the thoughts of my other responder, the work of Saussure, Derrida et al on signifiers and signified didn't involve any abstract thinking, just reading and regurgitation.
I do admit that my initial post was perhaps rather bullishly worded, and in that sense, the downvotes perhaps deserved. However, it is a bit ironic how hostile a reaction from HN members it recieved, considered it was intended as a compliment to HN members. What I was trying to get at was that the linked piece was essentially a very cheap shot - a cheap shot understood by reading the headline alone, at that, with the rest of the text offering little or no further insight or interest. On the other hand, the comments of (for example) cousin_it, jlc, olefoo were far more intelligent.