A minimalist lifestyle does not make you a better person(qntm.org)
qntm.org
A minimalist lifestyle does not make you a better person
http://qntm.org/less
23 comments
> If a 6 character variable name can be shortened to 5 characters without losing meaning, then I do it
While i totally agree with the general sentiment of your post, i'm really not sure about this one.
Or rather, im rly not sure abt dis one ;)
It's all about balance really, and very often this balance is only subjective, even if we generally don't like this idea
While i totally agree with the general sentiment of your post, i'm really not sure about this one.
Or rather, im rly not sure abt dis one ;)
It's all about balance really, and very often this balance is only subjective, even if we generally don't like this idea
Interesting example. In Mathematica, they opted for fully spelled out function names with caps to indicate new words for minimal ambiguity. For example LinearSolve is not linsolve or lnsolve or lsolve or even ls as it is in other languages or libraries. This makes the names of standard mathematical functions easier to remember or guess at.
Your minima may not be my minima!
Your minima may not be my minima!
Sure, but to be charitable to edw519, it's possible to interpret the remark as "can be shortened ... without compromising meaning".
Definitely, that's why i said i agreed with the general sentiment. I generally reason in exactly the same way so i understand from where GP is coming from.
Here's an example regarding this that affects me in javascript -
var t = this;
and then every time I refer to 't', I save 3 bytes. It's something js compressors can't do, and every byte counts in the end :)
var t = this;
and then every time I refer to 't', I save 3 bytes. It's something js compressors can't do, and every byte counts in the end :)
Going a bit off topic but I really hate when you have a bit of code you can either have 2 functions with some repetition or one function that gets ugly because of the number of if statements required based on parameters. Both options feel suboptimal.
I've found that sometimes passing in a function/function pointer as a parameter makes this a lot cleaner.
If a six character variable name is a real word and the 5 character variable name isn't, in my mind you've increased the number of objects in every statement that variable appears in from 1 to 5.
Now, there are some really common ones that are more or less idiomatic. i is iterator, ct is count. That said, those save a lot more than 1 character.
Now, there are some really common ones that are more or less idiomatic. i is iterator, ct is count. That said, those save a lot more than 1 character.
> If a 6 character variable name can be shortened to 5 characters without losing meaning, then I do it.
So.... what, you get rid of vowels, web 2.0 style?
So.... what, you get rid of vowels, web 2.0 style?
The thing is that sometimes when you've removed the redundancy you end up with a program that's more complex than the one you started with.
Toward the end the author says:
"Simplicity" is a relative term, and perhaps inapt; try "convenience", which has more useful connotations.
The lifestyle he describes and the programming style you describe are both, in the final analysis, maximally convenient (ceteris paribus). While not as catchy as "minimalism," I think convenience maximization (or time-debt minimization, as Patrick McKenzie might say) is a worthy objective. Perhaps call it "enlightened laziness" for that added sparkle.
"Simplicity" is a relative term, and perhaps inapt; try "convenience", which has more useful connotations.
The lifestyle he describes and the programming style you describe are both, in the final analysis, maximally convenient (ceteris paribus). While not as catchy as "minimalism," I think convenience maximization (or time-debt minimization, as Patrick McKenzie might say) is a worthy objective. Perhaps call it "enlightened laziness" for that added sparkle.
If statements? Case statements? Arrays and pointers? If you want minimalism, pickup a functional language and go pointfree.
A minimalist lifestyle can have many legitimate motivations. Sanctimonious anti-consumerism isn't one of these, nor is saving money.
Why not? A minimalist lifestyle can save a ton of money. I have a year-long runway to work on whatever I want full-time because I kept a pretty minimalist lifestyle for the last 3 years.
Why not? A minimalist lifestyle can save a ton of money. I have a year-long runway to work on whatever I want full-time because I kept a pretty minimalist lifestyle for the last 3 years.
Are you sure you're not mixing together minimalist and frugal? I have an acquaintance whom I'd consider very minimalist, however everything she does buy is top of the line and very expensive. When she goes out to eat, it's Michelin star restaurants. When she travels she considers 4 start hotels slumming it. At the end of the day minimalist and frugal or pretty orthogonal.
Frugal implies you are sacrificing quality or desire in the name of money. Minimalist implies you find joy in simpler things and a simpler life and therefore don't need or even want outlandish luxury.
I'm just as content sleeping at a Best Western as I am at a 5 star hotel. My Scion gets me to the grocery store just as well as a BMW would, etc. I'm not sacrificing anything, I simply don't feel a need for excessive luxury.
And I agree with the OP of this thread. Thanks to my minimalist lifestyle I too have plenty of leeway to do whatever I want for quite some time. It's a great feeling.
I'm just as content sleeping at a Best Western as I am at a 5 star hotel. My Scion gets me to the grocery store just as well as a BMW would, etc. I'm not sacrificing anything, I simply don't feel a need for excessive luxury.
And I agree with the OP of this thread. Thanks to my minimalist lifestyle I too have plenty of leeway to do whatever I want for quite some time. It's a great feeling.
"Scion gets me to the grocery store just as well as a BMW would"
This is not a good example of minimalism and in contradiction with your earlier statement that "Frugal implies you are sacrificing quality or desire in the name of money" (I infer you were contrasting with minimalism here)
A BMW is a lot higher quality than cheap cars, not necessarily 'excessive luxury'. It can be simple, depending on the configuration. One can find minimalist joy in a very expensive BMW. 'Just getting to the grocery store' is not about minimalism, it's about frugality. It's not because something is expensive that it's 'excessive'. Actually simple, high-quality products are often more expensive then cheap trinkets. To have a lot of leeway, one leads a frugal lifestyle to save money. A minimalist lifestyle isn't necessarily a cheap lifestyle.
This is not a good example of minimalism and in contradiction with your earlier statement that "Frugal implies you are sacrificing quality or desire in the name of money" (I infer you were contrasting with minimalism here)
A BMW is a lot higher quality than cheap cars, not necessarily 'excessive luxury'. It can be simple, depending on the configuration. One can find minimalist joy in a very expensive BMW. 'Just getting to the grocery store' is not about minimalism, it's about frugality. It's not because something is expensive that it's 'excessive'. Actually simple, high-quality products are often more expensive then cheap trinkets. To have a lot of leeway, one leads a frugal lifestyle to save money. A minimalist lifestyle isn't necessarily a cheap lifestyle.
I suppose we could debate this all day. My point is to me the luxury of a car is not very important. Indeed it's not important at all. I feel other people also feel that way, but feel like they "should" buy a BMW just because they can afford it. I'm not sacrificing anything here because the extra luxury I don't have and the status it would represent are both irrelevant to me.
I've made no real sacrifice with the Scion. It's made by Toyota and is a very high quality, dependable car. It will serve me well for many years. That's all a car needs to be in my eyes.
For things that are important to me, sure, I buy the best I can afford. But only a very small number of things are truly important to me. I suppose my definition of minimalism is just truly getting what you need, nothing more or less. I feel no need to "keep up with the Jonses", and overall just don't feel compelled to "be a good consumer".
I agree a minimalist lifestyle is not necessarily a cheaper lifestyle. I totally agree with that. But I do feel a minimalist lifestyle can be cheaper if your desires and needs just happen to work out that way, which in my case I generally feel they do.
I've made no real sacrifice with the Scion. It's made by Toyota and is a very high quality, dependable car. It will serve me well for many years. That's all a car needs to be in my eyes.
For things that are important to me, sure, I buy the best I can afford. But only a very small number of things are truly important to me. I suppose my definition of minimalism is just truly getting what you need, nothing more or less. I feel no need to "keep up with the Jonses", and overall just don't feel compelled to "be a good consumer".
I agree a minimalist lifestyle is not necessarily a cheaper lifestyle. I totally agree with that. But I do feel a minimalist lifestyle can be cheaper if your desires and needs just happen to work out that way, which in my case I generally feel they do.
Yes, it boils down to a definition matter, which isn't very interesting.
I try to live my life in a 'minimalist' way, because I feel less clutter makes for a more serene life. Still, making money is quite important to me, if only for the security it represents. On the other hand I also sometimes wonder if I'm spending enough to optimize life joy; I drive a small Citroen Saxo but I'm regularly annoyed by the small amount of space in it, and the inconvenience that it has only 3 doors. I guess my point is that it's surprisingly hard to walk the line between stinginess (a generally negative trait) and minimalism (a generally positive trait).
I try to live my life in a 'minimalist' way, because I feel less clutter makes for a more serene life. Still, making money is quite important to me, if only for the security it represents. On the other hand I also sometimes wonder if I'm spending enough to optimize life joy; I drive a small Citroen Saxo but I'm regularly annoyed by the small amount of space in it, and the inconvenience that it has only 3 doors. I guess my point is that it's surprisingly hard to walk the line between stinginess (a generally negative trait) and minimalism (a generally positive trait).
I'm reading a design book right now, and one of the interesting concepts it brings up is that people work better when they enjoy the tools they are using.
BMW drivers are often happier (driving) than other drivers, and more relaxed (and by extension, a bit safer) in their cars than drivers of other brands. The effect of satisfaction, quality, and usability is not well understood but we do know it's significant.
I'm an amateur photographer, and I do know that I take better pictures on some cameras than others. On the el-cheapo digital SLRs, I find that the small size, the poorer button placement, the lack of a satisfying weight to the contraption, etc, all lends itself to annoyance. A quality camera feels right in the hand, has just the right weight to it, and feels good to use, and that does impact the things you do with it.
A lot of what people in this thread would qualify as "excessive luxury" IMHO is not as irrelevant and excessive as one would think at first glance.
BMW drivers are often happier (driving) than other drivers, and more relaxed (and by extension, a bit safer) in their cars than drivers of other brands. The effect of satisfaction, quality, and usability is not well understood but we do know it's significant.
I'm an amateur photographer, and I do know that I take better pictures on some cameras than others. On the el-cheapo digital SLRs, I find that the small size, the poorer button placement, the lack of a satisfying weight to the contraption, etc, all lends itself to annoyance. A quality camera feels right in the hand, has just the right weight to it, and feels good to use, and that does impact the things you do with it.
A lot of what people in this thread would qualify as "excessive luxury" IMHO is not as irrelevant and excessive as one would think at first glance.
While I do agree with your points in general, it's important to keep in mind that everything is relative.
On the point about the cameras. If the photographer has a decent level of talent, then the gear definitely matters. Less so if they don't.
I know a lot of gadgety people who like to show off their expensive cameras. Their photos, however, aren't worth showing off at all - it wouldn't have mattered if they used a 5DMK2 or a lowly Rebel XSi. Boring is still boring no matter how sharp the picture is.
On the point about the cameras. If the photographer has a decent level of talent, then the gear definitely matters. Less so if they don't.
I know a lot of gadgety people who like to show off their expensive cameras. Their photos, however, aren't worth showing off at all - it wouldn't have mattered if they used a 5DMK2 or a lowly Rebel XSi. Boring is still boring no matter how sharp the picture is.
Indeed. That's part of my own logic for myself when considering "luxury" aspects of things. I'm not an avid driver at all, and it's not at all a big part of my life - so if I were to buy a car, "good enough" may very well be just that.
Whereas if I drove every day, and would spend a lot of time in the driver seat, I'd be much more inclined to buy something nicer (as opposed to merely functional).
In this case, photography is important to me, and I spend a lot of time doing it - so it's important that I have a tool that not only works well, but feels satisfying to use. After all, it's not a very good hobby if I'm constantly being frustrated by my equipments' usability.
Likewise, it's important for me to have a really nice coffee mug - given that it's part of my daily routine and I spend a lot of time interacting with it.
What I see is that many people over-optimize and fail to account for this effect - and they skimp on things that they do use heavily, resulting in a quality of life loss that they're probably not even aware of. (e.g., daily commuters, people who spend tens of hours in a car weekly, but driving a "good enough" beater, when they can easily afford better... or hackers who buy cheap/poorly made keyboards/mice even though they spend hours with it every single day).
Whereas if I drove every day, and would spend a lot of time in the driver seat, I'd be much more inclined to buy something nicer (as opposed to merely functional).
In this case, photography is important to me, and I spend a lot of time doing it - so it's important that I have a tool that not only works well, but feels satisfying to use. After all, it's not a very good hobby if I'm constantly being frustrated by my equipments' usability.
Likewise, it's important for me to have a really nice coffee mug - given that it's part of my daily routine and I spend a lot of time interacting with it.
What I see is that many people over-optimize and fail to account for this effect - and they skimp on things that they do use heavily, resulting in a quality of life loss that they're probably not even aware of. (e.g., daily commuters, people who spend tens of hours in a car weekly, but driving a "good enough" beater, when they can easily afford better... or hackers who buy cheap/poorly made keyboards/mice even though they spend hours with it every single day).
"I suppose we could debate this all day."
In other words, the concept of minimalism is multi-faceted, complex, full of myriad options, and above all...not a minimal concept.
In other words, the concept of minimalism is multi-faceted, complex, full of myriad options, and above all...not a minimal concept.
OK but minimalist could also be a Patek Phillippe Calatrava instead of an all-singing all-dancing Casio Pathfinder...
In other words, if you feel like congratulating yourself on your minimalism, you can pretty much justify anything as minimalist.
Personally I'd say that the minimalist wristwatch option is none at all. I don't think I'd be happier with no wristwatches, though. While my wristwatches bring me only a minimal amount of pleasure, congratulating myself on my lack of wristwatches wouldn't bring me much pleasure either.
I prefer "vaguely appropriate scale"-ism to minimalism. No wristwatches is too few, ten is too many. Pick something in between and stop fretting.
Personally I'd say that the minimalist wristwatch option is none at all. I don't think I'd be happier with no wristwatches, though. While my wristwatches bring me only a minimal amount of pleasure, congratulating myself on my lack of wristwatches wouldn't bring me much pleasure either.
I prefer "vaguely appropriate scale"-ism to minimalism. No wristwatches is too few, ten is too many. Pick something in between and stop fretting.
Very good point. Sometimes minimalism is a lot more expensive.
Minimalism implies the things you have are truly things you actually need, and not just the latest fashionable fad of the week.
If you're hosting client meetings, the Best Western isn't going have as nice a set of facilities as a 5-star hotel. If you're on a race track, your Scion sucks compared to a BMW, etc. You are sacrificing. The important point is you're cognizant of the sacrifices (a BMW time around a racetrack is irrelevant to your Scion getting you to the grocery store). A macbook pro is a luxury, but absolutely justifiable if you do development on it all day long.
If you're hosting client meetings, the Best Western isn't going have as nice a set of facilities as a 5-star hotel. If you're on a race track, your Scion sucks compared to a BMW, etc. You are sacrificing. The important point is you're cognizant of the sacrifices (a BMW time around a racetrack is irrelevant to your Scion getting you to the grocery store). A macbook pro is a luxury, but absolutely justifiable if you do development on it all day long.
For sure, if I'm hosting client meetings then I have an honest need for the better facilities. But if I'm just going out of town and just need a place to crash, the Best Western is more than adequate.
I think in attempting to be frugal though some people can actually spend more. While the minimalist will get one of something and probably go for a good one to last the person being frugal might go for the cheapest one, or buy a set of cheap things covering themselves for bad quality, they may end up spending more in the long run when things don't last.
I love some of the frugal websites that are completely focused on price. You get list after list of special offers where you can get stuff for next to nothing but it's all utter crud. Some items, however cheap, are a false economy.
At the end of the day minimalist and frugal or pretty orthogonal.
I think that is certainly true in the abstract, but I suspect in the average specific case minimalism correlates with saving money. For the average person, their biggest expense is their home. If you have less stuff and can comfortably live in a smaller place, there is a lot of saving there.
Also, there is the lifetime cost issue. One good screwdriver may be expensive, but probably compares well with 10 crappy screwdrives that wear down or break that you buy over many years.
I think the interesting part of the OP was the point that digitisation does enable a new kind of minimalism - one that does not require as much compromise as it did before. I can give up 10 bookscases worth of books without having to give up reading whatever I like, whenever I like. This was certainly not the case 30 years ago.
I think that is certainly true in the abstract, but I suspect in the average specific case minimalism correlates with saving money. For the average person, their biggest expense is their home. If you have less stuff and can comfortably live in a smaller place, there is a lot of saving there.
Also, there is the lifetime cost issue. One good screwdriver may be expensive, but probably compares well with 10 crappy screwdrives that wear down or break that you buy over many years.
I think the interesting part of the OP was the point that digitisation does enable a new kind of minimalism - one that does not require as much compromise as it did before. I can give up 10 bookscases worth of books without having to give up reading whatever I like, whenever I like. This was certainly not the case 30 years ago.
It depends on the type of thing you're trying to minimise. A low-cost lifestyle is not synonymous with a minimalist one, they are related goals but different on a practical level. Some kinds of minimalism can be very expensive.
Replacing your car with a bike and a set of walking shoes will save you a tonne of money. But it might incur more effort and planning. There'll be times when the weather is rough or the distance is too great or time is too short, when having a car would have been (more money but) much less hassle. Replacing all your books with a Kindle will probably cost you because you have to buy your books all over again (you'll probably wind up in the red even if you sell all your physical books second-hand). Does going to restaurants instead of keeping food at home count as "minimalism"?
Replacing your car with a bike and a set of walking shoes will save you a tonne of money. But it might incur more effort and planning. There'll be times when the weather is rough or the distance is too great or time is too short, when having a car would have been (more money but) much less hassle. Replacing all your books with a Kindle will probably cost you because you have to buy your books all over again (you'll probably wind up in the red even if you sell all your physical books second-hand). Does going to restaurants instead of keeping food at home count as "minimalism"?
I think this article (and some of your points too) are conflating minimalism with simplicity. Minimalist is buying 1 Kindle and putting all of your books on it and then selling them. This is more expensive.
Simple is keeping your books you want to read again and getting rid of books you've read and aren't going to read to reduce your bookshelf space. Then get a library card and check out books to read from there. Less $ and simpler, though not necessarily the most minimalist you can be.
I think minimalism is one aspect of simplicity, but not the only one. Simplicity also involves practicality, economics, sustainability, etc.
Simple is keeping your books you want to read again and getting rid of books you've read and aren't going to read to reduce your bookshelf space. Then get a library card and check out books to read from there. Less $ and simpler, though not necessarily the most minimalist you can be.
I think minimalism is one aspect of simplicity, but not the only one. Simplicity also involves practicality, economics, sustainability, etc.
In a nutshell, I aim for a life with the fewest variables. I'll admit that "minimalist" doesn't fully cover this. Possibly "simplicity" doesn't either.
All of that is fine, I agree, but his statement was stronger than "minimalism might cost more if you do it a certain way", it was "saving money is not a legitimate motivation for minimalism". The latter is what I disagree with.
This is running the risk of turning into semantic wanking over the meaning of "minimalism", so I'm going to shut up now.
This is running the risk of turning into semantic wanking over the meaning of "minimalism", so I'm going to shut up now.
From what I understood, the point of that bit of the article is that having less stuff (for the same functionality) often costs more, and he justifies it by the digitalization of his library and media library. Therefore if your only motivation was saving money, the author argues you'd be better off doing something other than reducing the amount of stuff you have.
While I am doing the same exact thing, I think you're running sideways of the point being made here.
The point isn't that minimalism can't help you achieve a particular set of goals, but rather that it isn't superior to anything else.
The implied alternative to minimalism is not egregious prodigality but rather measured enjoyment of life that doesn't strip you bare but doesn't attempt to max out your financial high score.
I'm a minimalist, but I try very very hard not to come off as the aforementioned "sanctimonious anti-consumerist" type. I'm a minimalist because I really really care about my work, and I don't want much.
Well that's just dandy for me, but my values are not other peoples' values, and I can see how other people would prefer to make use of their time in a manner that makes them more immediately happy.
Don't mistake the apparent fiscal conservatism and "safety" of minimalism as somehow being superior or safer than enjoying and consuming things as they are now.
I would in fact argue, that as a minimalism I am taking a very great risk with my life compared to someone who gets out more and has more fun.
I am taking a risk with my time and my life, because if I get hit by a bus tomorrow before I've had the time to amass the money->time necessary to work on the projects I'd like to pursue, I'm going to die screaming in anger at my self.
Someone who's taken a less concentrated approach to being happy with their lives probably isn't going to be nearly as upset as they lay bleeding under that bus that ran them over.
You and I are risk takers of a different kind.
Our values are not their values, and those values are not inferior nor superior to anyones'. It's all case specific.
If you value money more than most other things in life, then of course minimalism will be a "superior" means to the end you seek, but it's not somehow morally superior.
The man that puts aside his career/continued financial growth to spend time with his children, is in my eyes, the greater person than the one who manages to become a CTO by 40 at the expense of said family.
But those are my values and perspective, and they're still not the choices I would make at this point in my life.
I'm sad that a hackerne.ws user would be so myopically acquisitive without understanding the greater implications in terms of risk and how you spend your time.
I'll probably make a proper blog post on this at some point.
The point isn't that minimalism can't help you achieve a particular set of goals, but rather that it isn't superior to anything else.
The implied alternative to minimalism is not egregious prodigality but rather measured enjoyment of life that doesn't strip you bare but doesn't attempt to max out your financial high score.
I'm a minimalist, but I try very very hard not to come off as the aforementioned "sanctimonious anti-consumerist" type. I'm a minimalist because I really really care about my work, and I don't want much.
Well that's just dandy for me, but my values are not other peoples' values, and I can see how other people would prefer to make use of their time in a manner that makes them more immediately happy.
Don't mistake the apparent fiscal conservatism and "safety" of minimalism as somehow being superior or safer than enjoying and consuming things as they are now.
I would in fact argue, that as a minimalism I am taking a very great risk with my life compared to someone who gets out more and has more fun.
I am taking a risk with my time and my life, because if I get hit by a bus tomorrow before I've had the time to amass the money->time necessary to work on the projects I'd like to pursue, I'm going to die screaming in anger at my self.
Someone who's taken a less concentrated approach to being happy with their lives probably isn't going to be nearly as upset as they lay bleeding under that bus that ran them over.
You and I are risk takers of a different kind.
Our values are not their values, and those values are not inferior nor superior to anyones'. It's all case specific.
If you value money more than most other things in life, then of course minimalism will be a "superior" means to the end you seek, but it's not somehow morally superior.
The man that puts aside his career/continued financial growth to spend time with his children, is in my eyes, the greater person than the one who manages to become a CTO by 40 at the expense of said family.
But those are my values and perspective, and they're still not the choices I would make at this point in my life.
I'm sad that a hackerne.ws user would be so myopically acquisitive without understanding the greater implications in terms of risk and how you spend your time.
I'll probably make a proper blog post on this at some point.
Pedantic note:
"There is one Phillips screwdriver in my house."
Uh oh. Philips screwdrivers come in varying degrees of bluntness, with the very blunt ones for the very big screws and very pointy ones for small screws. Phillips screwdrivers are not the right area to avoid redundancy. (buying one with variable bits that fit on it would be a better option).
"There is one Phillips screwdriver in my house."
Uh oh. Philips screwdrivers come in varying degrees of bluntness, with the very blunt ones for the very big screws and very pointy ones for small screws. Phillips screwdrivers are not the right area to avoid redundancy. (buying one with variable bits that fit on it would be a better option).
Not to mention if you try using the a small Phillips screwdriver suitable for changing a plug to screw in the sort of screw you want for a sturdy book shelf (or vice versa) you're going to find yourself in all sorts of bother.
Then he got rid of his books so that's not an issue he has I guess...
Interesting that he does identify that you need more than one kitchen knife. Minimum for me is a decent general knife (say 7") and a bread knife.
Then he got rid of his books so that's not an issue he has I guess...
Interesting that he does identify that you need more than one kitchen knife. Minimum for me is a decent general knife (say 7") and a bread knife.
Generally there are two essential knives; a chefs knife and a paring knife. I agree that a bread knife is nice to have, but I could probably get by without it.
In a pinch (like when I find that my proper knives haven't been washed) I find that my steak knives will cut anything, from raw meat to vegetables to cheese to bread to steak.
But the kitchen is a lousy place to practice minimalism anyway.
But the kitchen is a lousy place to practice minimalism anyway.
Depends on how frequently you use it, and even then it may not be a big deal.
I do tons of home repairs, automotive repairs, build things, take stuff apart and so on. I have enough tools to equip a small production woodshop, plus a growing collection of metalworking equipment. And even after all that I probably use a #2 phillips screwdriver on 99% of anything that has a phillips head screw.
For a "typical" person, a #2 phillips will probably serve all their reasonable needs.
I do tons of home repairs, automotive repairs, build things, take stuff apart and so on. I have enough tools to equip a small production woodshop, plus a growing collection of metalworking equipment. And even after all that I probably use a #2 phillips screwdriver on 99% of anything that has a phillips head screw.
For a "typical" person, a #2 phillips will probably serve all their reasonable needs.
We're going off on a tangent here, but I don't agree. I mean, most people do have only one or two Phillips screwdrivers and use them on all screws they see that have a 'cross' on them, and I guess it'll work in the majority of cases like you say, but it's uncomfortable to work with the wrong size, and will damage your screwdriver and/or screws to boot. 'right tools for the job' and all. Having 3 sizes is not excessive IMO, and having only a #2 is not an example of a minimalist lifestyle. For disassembling an Xbox or other piece of consumer electronics you need a #1, for putting up drywall a #2 and for mounting a heavy bookshelf a #3. All fairly regular tasks I'd say.
All fairly regular tasks I'd say
The vast vast majority of people I know have never done any of those things, and probably never will. If their xbox is broken, they either send it off to get fixed or throw it out and get a new one. If they need drywall or heavy bookshelves put in, they call someone.
I would consider owning no tools and and getting other people to handle all your repair work to be a fine example of a certain type of minimalism.
The vast vast majority of people I know have never done any of those things, and probably never will. If their xbox is broken, they either send it off to get fixed or throw it out and get a new one. If they need drywall or heavy bookshelves put in, they call someone.
I would consider owning no tools and and getting other people to handle all your repair work to be a fine example of a certain type of minimalism.
"I would consider owning no tools and and getting other people to handle all your repair work to be a fine example of a certain type of minimalism."
Ah yes, good point, and I agree. I guess I was too fast in making a generalization on my own behavior re: the tasks for which one would use a screwdriver. I guess I own many tools because I'm frugal :)
Ah yes, good point, and I agree. I guess I was too fast in making a generalization on my own behavior re: the tasks for which one would use a screwdriver. I guess I own many tools because I'm frugal :)
Personally, I find that my #1x60 Wiha can tackle just about anything. What it can't do, a drill with a replaceable #2 bit does.
Its a small point, but well made. I have more than one phillips screwdrive on my multitool in my pocket, and numerous ones around the house. While the occassions to use them may overlap, there are problems for which exactly one of the ones I own is a best fit.
From the comments here, it's fairly obvious that people have multiple conflicting ideas of what 'minimalist' actually means, which makes this blog post moot because no one will ever agree.
Maybe I'm missing the point of the article but...
"A minimalist lifestyle does not make you a better person. But it may make you happier."
I would argue that if you're a happier person, you are a better person. So if a minimalist lifestyle makes you happier, a minimalist lifestyle makes you better.
Seems like an odd article to me.
EDIT: Seems like I'm getting flack for about "what if the person is evil but happy, are they a better person?..."
Apologies for not explaining my argument well the first time. The author argues that being minimalist makes him happier, less worrisome, less irritable, and have less liabilities, but not a better person. If being minimalist makes you all those things, then I think it does make you a better person than if you weren't minimalist.
"A minimalist lifestyle does not make you a better person. But it may make you happier."
I would argue that if you're a happier person, you are a better person. So if a minimalist lifestyle makes you happier, a minimalist lifestyle makes you better.
Seems like an odd article to me.
EDIT: Seems like I'm getting flack for about "what if the person is evil but happy, are they a better person?..."
Apologies for not explaining my argument well the first time. The author argues that being minimalist makes him happier, less worrisome, less irritable, and have less liabilities, but not a better person. If being minimalist makes you all those things, then I think it does make you a better person than if you weren't minimalist.
I would argue that if you're a happier person, you are a better person.
I'm sure there are plenty of perfectly happy assholes out there.
I'm sure there are plenty of perfectly happy assholes out there.
I would argue that they are better than unhappy assholes.
As a corollary, the happier the assholes are, the better person/more agreeable they would be, and I have found that statement to be true.
As a corollary, the happier the assholes are, the better person/more agreeable they would be, and I have found that statement to be true.
I would argue that they are better than unhappy assholes.
What if doing hurtful things makes them happy?
What if doing hurtful things makes them happy?
That doesn't say anything about whether making them happy in other ways reduces their assholishness. It might do. (Perhaps they have a certain happiness setpoint, and if they're not made happy enough by other things then they'll achieve it by being assholes.) Or it might not. (Perhaps they associate happiness with assholishness, and an increase in either provokes an increase in the other.)
Ok, what if being an asshole makes one happy? ;)
This sounds highly implausible from what I know of happiness. Being an asshole helps them cope? Sure. Makes them happy? No.
It seems like you're conflating disparate things. Being curious can lead to being educated, can lead to a good job, can lead to more money, can... but being curious does not equal more money. Keeping cause and effect straight is a "happy" thing.
Also, all happiness may equal better but not all minimalism equals happiness.
And, most of all, being happy does not mean you are a better person. What if hurting kittens makes you happy?
Also, all happiness may equal better but not all minimalism equals happiness.
And, most of all, being happy does not mean you are a better person. What if hurting kittens makes you happy?
"Also, all happiness may equal better but not all minimalism equals happiness."
I agree
"And, most of all, being happy does not mean you are a better person. What if hurting kittens makes you happy?"
Well you're right, but extreme outliers about kitten hurting aside... If something makes you happier, less worrisome, less irritable, and have less liabilities, (like the author is saying being minimalist does for him), then yes he's a better person than if he wasn't minimalist.
I agree
"And, most of all, being happy does not mean you are a better person. What if hurting kittens makes you happy?"
Well you're right, but extreme outliers about kitten hurting aside... If something makes you happier, less worrisome, less irritable, and have less liabilities, (like the author is saying being minimalist does for him), then yes he's a better person than if he wasn't minimalist.
Ok, leave sociopaths aside: Arguing makes some people happy. ;)
I agree. I thought that the article's points contradicted each other and that it reads like a hastily-written lecture against the minimalism fad, whatever that is.
I assume the author was targeting the average person in regards to the "better person" comment, in which case a happier person does make a better person. Their confidence is improved, and thus they tend to be nicer to others. No need for an evil clause.
I assume the author was targeting the average person in regards to the "better person" comment, in which case a happier person does make a better person. Their confidence is improved, and thus they tend to be nicer to others. No need for an evil clause.
And then you have a kid.
What if you have twins? There goes minimalism, and here comes redundancy.
I think Leo Babauta of http://mnmlist.com/ is a great model for minimalism (or simplicity, or however you'd like to define it) and he has six children.
http://thepowerofless.com/leo-babauta-author-bio/
His mindset defines minimalism for me and I think refutes the central points of this blog post. He seems to be financially successful, frugal, happy, healthy and in a loving relationship with a wife and family.
If anything, stripping life down to the bare essentials should give you more time to focus on your family. Granted, I don't have children, so feel free to dismiss my comments on those grounds alone :)
http://thepowerofless.com/leo-babauta-author-bio/
His mindset defines minimalism for me and I think refutes the central points of this blog post. He seems to be financially successful, frugal, happy, healthy and in a loving relationship with a wife and family.
If anything, stripping life down to the bare essentials should give you more time to focus on your family. Granted, I don't have children, so feel free to dismiss my comments on those grounds alone :)
I thought this was the case, too. Until I started reading about Sean Bonner. Look him up!
And then you eat it. With butter.
Why do children need lots of stuff?
My grandfather was one of seven children, and they had one drawer each for toys and another drawer for clothes. They seemed to turn out OK.
Of course this kind of thing requires the co-operation of both parents, but that's true of a lot of things.
My grandfather was one of seven children, and they had one drawer each for toys and another drawer for clothes. They seemed to turn out OK.
Of course this kind of thing requires the co-operation of both parents, but that's true of a lot of things.
I wasn't implying that kids need lots of stuff.
I was implying that then you have a kid and have more urgent things to worry about than whether or not your life is perfectly organized.
Like how to get the kid to stop wiping their poop on the dog.
I was implying that then you have a kid and have more urgent things to worry about than whether or not your life is perfectly organized.
Like how to get the kid to stop wiping their poop on the dog.
Try having triplets. A perfectly organized (and frugal) life suddenly becomes a huge priority, whether you like it or not.
In my case, I also took a minimalist approach and work towards getting rid of clutter, selling off spare computers or equipment for hobbies I don't have time for anymore.
I haven't had a "singleton" (single born child), but I can imagine the same organizational/simplifying demands are made of you, but to a lesser extent.
In my case, I also took a minimalist approach and work towards getting rid of clutter, selling off spare computers or equipment for hobbies I don't have time for anymore.
I haven't had a "singleton" (single born child), but I can imagine the same organizational/simplifying demands are made of you, but to a lesser extent.
Having had one and having seen friends with twins, multiples are definitely harder. Yes there are certain economies of scale but I don't think they even come close to balancing up the additional chaos, effort and exhaustion.
(And +1 for sympathy and respect that you've had triplets and are still here to tell the tale).
(And +1 for sympathy and respect that you've had triplets and are still here to tell the tale).
In fact, my experiences (which contrast the article) are what has enabled me to be here and sane. Before, we were fleeting, disorganized, and didn't plan.
Now everything is regimented and organized and "minimalized". That's how we're sane and fairly happy (it feels like the movie Groundhog Day, often. And you really have to focus on marriage time.).
We're finding our experiences to be much more sane than others, when we talk to other multiples parents. They haven't developed a simple life, and a simple set of regiments.
Now everything is regimented and organized and "minimalized". That's how we're sane and fairly happy (it feels like the movie Groundhog Day, often. And you really have to focus on marriage time.).
We're finding our experiences to be much more sane than others, when we talk to other multiples parents. They haven't developed a simple life, and a simple set of regiments.
Not having the dog would be the minimalist solution.
I've been wanting to start an inventory of every item I own with the goal of going minimalist but it's so daunting I haven't started yet. And I'm a college student! (Maybe there's room for an app here?)
Here are my notes from a Bruce Sterling keynote [1]. I liked the "life simplification" part (32 min mark). But found the rest of his talk dull and poorly delivered.
[1] "Dealing with stuff" -- Bruce Sterling http://video.reboot.dk/video/486788/bruce-sterling-reboot-11
- Pay most attention to your "common everyday objects". That is, anything that takes up your immediate space: on your body; in the room with you. Also those things that take a lot of your time
- Buy the best possible common everyday objects you can. Most importantly:
-- your bed: you spend a third of your life in it. Consider the per-hour cost
-- your chair: stop whining about your wrists and back hurting and buy a really good chair. Again consider the per-hour cost
- Ditch anything you haven't used in the last 12 months. eg: wedding china, tuxedo, everything in your storage locker
- Only buy real things you really use
---------
How to get rid of stuff.
First, note that getting rid of stuff is HARD (but doable). Do NOT start on impulse. Think hard about it and make sure you're morally prepared.
Then... for each item in your life ask the following questions:
1) Is it beautiful?
Test: You have it on display. You share its beauty with the people in your life.
If yes then keep it, otherwise...
2) Is it emotionally important?
Test: It has a narrative. You share its story with other people.
If yes then keep it, otherwise...
3a) Is it a useful tool, piece of equipment, or appliance?
Test: It efficiently performs some useful function. It actually works. It is the best possible tool. (Do not put up with broken or shoddy stuff)
Bruce's side comment: There's nothing more materialistic than doing the same job 5 times because your tools are inferior.
3b) Are you experimenting on it?
Test: You methodically work on it and you publish your results.
Bruce's side comment: Beware brand-new time-sucking beta-rollout crap.
If yes to either then keep it, otherwise...
4) It is unworthy of taking your space or time. Virtualize it (take its picture; record the barcode; record any anecdotes about it) then get RID of it. If you ever need it again, get another one from eBay.
---------
[1] "Dealing with stuff" -- Bruce Sterling http://video.reboot.dk/video/486788/bruce-sterling-reboot-11
- Pay most attention to your "common everyday objects". That is, anything that takes up your immediate space: on your body; in the room with you. Also those things that take a lot of your time
- Buy the best possible common everyday objects you can. Most importantly:
-- your bed: you spend a third of your life in it. Consider the per-hour cost
-- your chair: stop whining about your wrists and back hurting and buy a really good chair. Again consider the per-hour cost
- Ditch anything you haven't used in the last 12 months. eg: wedding china, tuxedo, everything in your storage locker
- Only buy real things you really use
---------
How to get rid of stuff.
First, note that getting rid of stuff is HARD (but doable). Do NOT start on impulse. Think hard about it and make sure you're morally prepared.
Then... for each item in your life ask the following questions:
1) Is it beautiful?
Test: You have it on display. You share its beauty with the people in your life.
If yes then keep it, otherwise...
2) Is it emotionally important?
Test: It has a narrative. You share its story with other people.
If yes then keep it, otherwise...
3a) Is it a useful tool, piece of equipment, or appliance?
Test: It efficiently performs some useful function. It actually works. It is the best possible tool. (Do not put up with broken or shoddy stuff)
Bruce's side comment: There's nothing more materialistic than doing the same job 5 times because your tools are inferior.
3b) Are you experimenting on it?
Test: You methodically work on it and you publish your results.
Bruce's side comment: Beware brand-new time-sucking beta-rollout crap.
If yes to either then keep it, otherwise...
4) It is unworthy of taking your space or time. Virtualize it (take its picture; record the barcode; record any anecdotes about it) then get RID of it. If you ever need it again, get another one from eBay.
---------
Why would you do that?
Just open your closet and throw out each thing unless you used it in the last week. Just throw it out now. Tomorrow is a euphemism for never. You can always buy or borrow if you need it later.
http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/stuff-minimization-framework
Just open your closet and throw out each thing unless you used it in the last week. Just throw it out now. Tomorrow is a euphemism for never. You can always buy or borrow if you need it later.
http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/stuff-minimization-framework
Again, I'm a college student. Re-buying stuff I threw out based on a naive criterion like that would be terrible with my limited resources.
An inventory would help me better decide what to throw out and keep me organized. If someone built an inventory app that could keep track of purchases via bank reports and OCR'd receipts, I would probably pay for it.
An inventory would help me better decide what to throw out and keep me organized. If someone built an inventory app that could keep track of purchases via bank reports and OCR'd receipts, I would probably pay for it.
You might start kicking yourself when winter rolls around all you have are cargo shorts and a few ironic t-shirts.
But seriously, it is not that hard to figure out? Do you really need a computer program to determine how much stuff you need?
How did pre-computer generations ever manage, I guess they didn't?
No offense - if a computer program would help some people, it would actually me happy. However, so far I have a hard time to believe that there could be a market for such a program. Exception: books and other media.
How did pre-computer generations ever manage, I guess they didn't?
No offense - if a computer program would help some people, it would actually me happy. However, so far I have a hard time to believe that there could be a market for such a program. Exception: books and other media.
Luckily I have a "I threw out all my winter clothes and all I kept was this ironic t-shirt" t-shirt.
My friend uses a less wasteful, but slower technique. Here's what she does every spring and fall:
1. In the fall, she boxes up or separates everything she hasn't used in the past week. For clothing, she just turns the hangers in the closet around (so the open part of the hook is facing you.)
2. She lives her life for six months. Every time she uses something, she puts it back in the normal cupboard rather than back in the box.
3. In the spring, she simply gives away all the boxes and all the clothing that is hanging backwards. She allows herself a couple of "passes" for special clothing (e.g. she might know that she has a few weddings coming up so she'll keep an extra dress.)
What I did (http://www.thintz.com/essays/less-stuff) is to take stuff that I didn't think I needed and move it to the basement. If it stayed down there for awhile and I didn't miss it, then I knew there was a good chance that I didn't need it anymore.
I'm not saying that many people have too much stuff -- I certainly do, and I'm not entirely happy about it -- but throwing out stuff you haven't used within the last week is easily one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Which is really saying something.
It shouldn't be conspicuous and self-congratulatory
Does writing a blog post about your minimalist lifestyle count?
Does writing a blog post about your minimalist lifestyle count?
No, but submitting it to HN does
I always wonder what the super-minimalists (< 100 personal items) do about food. I easily have 100 (less if you consider redundancies: should I count each fork individually?) things in my kitchen and most of them get used regularly.
Either they are eating out all the time or they are using someone else's kitchen, both of which seem somewhat antithetical to sub-100 minimalism.
Either they are eating out all the time or they are using someone else's kitchen, both of which seem somewhat antithetical to sub-100 minimalism.
We don't spend too much time talking or thinking about it in my house, but we do periodically clean/throw out old junk that piles in closets & the garage.
I agree with his point regarding being sanctimonious about it though. We don't brag to anybody, or even talk about it much. Its just a matter of doing something we know makes us feel better and thats about it.
However, over time it does save you money, because if you have to move or change your surroundings, you only need enough room for your body and not your stuff.
We're moving to a new house that is only marginally larger than our current house because we're planning a larger family (it also is a higher quality house too)... not because we need more space for stuff. Its nice to only consider your living space from the perspective of what you do in it, and not have to also worry about how all of your stuff goes into it too.
I agree with his point regarding being sanctimonious about it though. We don't brag to anybody, or even talk about it much. Its just a matter of doing something we know makes us feel better and thats about it.
However, over time it does save you money, because if you have to move or change your surroundings, you only need enough room for your body and not your stuff.
We're moving to a new house that is only marginally larger than our current house because we're planning a larger family (it also is a higher quality house too)... not because we need more space for stuff. Its nice to only consider your living space from the perspective of what you do in it, and not have to also worry about how all of your stuff goes into it too.
I'd say it does. I was a gadget fiend. I know I don't want an iPad, but I would've needed one if I hadn't have tried to declutter my life. Having done so, my tiny house is now that much more spacious (but slowly clutter creeps in and now and again I have to have a massive clearance) and as the article says, I have less to worry about. In addition to this I no longer need an iPad. In fact I used one for a few hours and found it quite heavy.
This year I bought an ebook reader, not because I wanted one but because I was going on holiday and wanted to read 10 books. The cost of an ereader was cheaper than buying those 10 and losing the luggage space. I read 15 books on that holiday, mostly from Project Guttenberg. I could've took a laptop and read them on that as a compromise, but I wanted something my eyes wouldn't get tired over, and a computer screen would've reminded me of work. My E-Reader now sits in the kitchen until the next time I take it out - I'm in the middle of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and I know I should read it but I don't. Still, next year I'll take it out and I'll get my books for much less than taking physical copies.
Last year I had a clear-out of all my old DVDs - and I used to have more than my local Blockbusters (as a massive film buff a lot were obscure too) so I gave them away to charity shops. If I can find epubs of my books I think I'll do the same with them next year.
This year I bought an ebook reader, not because I wanted one but because I was going on holiday and wanted to read 10 books. The cost of an ereader was cheaper than buying those 10 and losing the luggage space. I read 15 books on that holiday, mostly from Project Guttenberg. I could've took a laptop and read them on that as a compromise, but I wanted something my eyes wouldn't get tired over, and a computer screen would've reminded me of work. My E-Reader now sits in the kitchen until the next time I take it out - I'm in the middle of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and I know I should read it but I don't. Still, next year I'll take it out and I'll get my books for much less than taking physical copies.
Last year I had a clear-out of all my old DVDs - and I used to have more than my local Blockbusters (as a massive film buff a lot were obscure too) so I gave them away to charity shops. If I can find epubs of my books I think I'll do the same with them next year.
I think that it's most important to know what you want yourself first.
If you know that, then you can easily spend your money on the right things for the right reasons and, thus, spare yourself from owning all kinds of cool, new, luxury, status, or whatever objects that you only bought because you wanted to be cool or successful or you thought you wanted them.
For example, I don't need a new car, a high-end mobile phone, or the ultimate gaming setup with a ridiculously expensive graphics card. They wouldn't produce much extra value to me so I don't feel justified to pay for them. However, I do love photography so buying a new DSLR and a set of lenses instead of a pocket camera was well justified even though the money spent on the DSLR was probably ten-fold.
If you know that, then you can easily spend your money on the right things for the right reasons and, thus, spare yourself from owning all kinds of cool, new, luxury, status, or whatever objects that you only bought because you wanted to be cool or successful or you thought you wanted them.
For example, I don't need a new car, a high-end mobile phone, or the ultimate gaming setup with a ridiculously expensive graphics card. They wouldn't produce much extra value to me so I don't feel justified to pay for them. However, I do love photography so buying a new DSLR and a set of lenses instead of a pocket camera was well justified even though the money spent on the DSLR was probably ten-fold.
Same topic but with more funny -
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2010/09/minimizing-windows-j...
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2010/09/minimizing-windows-j...
The bike snob anti-new-minimalism thread is highly entertaining and informative. The idea that those suffering from extreme poverty are the ultimate minimalists puts the recent "wearing minimalism on your sleeve" trend in perspective IMO.
"I can't stand clutter"
That pretty much sums up the article for me. I'd rather hear from someone who switched to a minimal lifestyle than from someone who apparently has always favored it.
That pretty much sums up the article for me. I'd rather hear from someone who switched to a minimal lifestyle than from someone who apparently has always favored it.
A lifestyle without redundancy is a very precarious one. Without redundancy any single failure could turn your day into a nightmare.
That's why I have two hearts, in case one needs surgery.
Seriously though, what kind of redundancy are you suggesting? I could have two cars, or two ovens, or two hot water systems in case my first one breaks down, but I can get by with workarounds for a broken-down car, oven and hot water system anyway.
Seriously though, what kind of redundancy are you suggesting? I could have two cars, or two ovens, or two hot water systems in case my first one breaks down, but I can get by with workarounds for a broken-down car, oven and hot water system anyway.
There are very few things you could not do without for a short time or quickly get a substitute. For those few things, make sure you have a spare. For everything else, the spare is probably a waste.
Reminds me of [Paul Graham]: http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html
[deleted]
"There is one Phillips screwdriver in my house."
How many screws do you strip by not having the right size of Phillips screw driver? How many more can you not engage? Or have you gone really minimal and guaranteed that you have only one size of head on all your screws?
How many screws do you strip by not having the right size of Phillips screw driver? How many more can you not engage? Or have you gone really minimal and guaranteed that you have only one size of head on all your screws?
I think the author means to say that a minimalist lifestyle does not make him a better person.
He really has no idea who any of us are, or what our goals are, or more importantly what our vices are. Some of us probably would benefit from a more minimalist lifestyle.
He really has no idea who any of us are, or what our goals are, or more importantly what our vices are. Some of us probably would benefit from a more minimalist lifestyle.
'A minimalist lifestyle does not make you a better person'
I'd like to understand why, but fixed-width, left-aligned layout at 1680x1050? Fluid width or at least centering the text would be helpful.
I'd like to understand why, but fixed-width, left-aligned layout at 1680x1050? Fluid width or at least centering the text would be helpful.
HTML is a wonderful thing. It conveys structure; CSS conveys presentation, but can be overriden at user's wish. Your browser should have a zoom function. Your browser should have a CSS override function. Your browser should have a "readability" function.
But a user should not be forced into using any of those things.
imo, if I have an Apple monitor used by a large number of potential site visitors set at maximum resolution, then the page should at least center the div if you are going to do a fixed width layout, so 1/2 of the right side of the screen isn't a plain otherwise empty blue background. That way at least only 1/4 of the page is empty on both sides, which is less distracting.
Fluid width with adjusting fluid left/right % columns (divs, or table if you must) also works.
imo, if I have an Apple monitor used by a large number of potential site visitors set at maximum resolution, then the page should at least center the div if you are going to do a fixed width layout, so 1/2 of the right side of the screen isn't a plain otherwise empty blue background. That way at least only 1/4 of the page is empty on both sides, which is less distracting.
Fluid width with adjusting fluid left/right % columns (divs, or table if you must) also works.
A user maximizing his browser on a screen 1680 pixels wide is not a user whose particular aesthetic preferences are worth accommodating.
If you choose to make your browser window wider than a line of text you'd comfortably read, you also can choose to apply any settings that will make sites look more to your liking.
If you choose to make your browser window wider than a line of text you'd comfortably read, you also can choose to apply any settings that will make sites look more to your liking.
Talk about a first world problem. Who cares how the blueness is distributed in your needlessly maximised browser window?
It bothers you so that you won't even read the blog post, swoon!
It bothers you so that you won't even read the blog post, swoon!
I apply a minimalist ethic to all kinds of things, including the amount of effort I put into designing my site ;)
[deleted]
generalization/key point as I see it: doing x for x's sake or as an excuse to be self-righteous is bad, do things because they make you happy or make something easier.
This is actually a really useful rule in a lot of other places too.
This is actually a really useful rule in a lot of other places too.
But a minimalist coding style does make you a better programmer.
I really don't mind a few extra Philips screwdrivers, kitchen knives, or pairs of shoes in my house, but I every superfluous bit of code in my repository drives me nuts.
Others say I go overboard and they're probably right, but I can't help myself.
If a 6 character variable name can be shortened to 5 characters without losing meaning, then I do it. Same thing with labels and function names. If I find the same line of code twice, I write a function (but only after whipping myself). Complex If Statements are replaced by Case. Complex Case Statements are replaced by arrays and pointers. Two programs look alike? Replace them with one parameter-driven program. Two forms look alike? Replace them with a flexible form app. Reports? Same thing.
Old data? Archived! Old programs? Archived! Old notes? Archived! And not one trip to Goodwill, just to my e: drive. I'm so proud of myself when I can fit the software needed to run a $100 million company on a 256K thumb drive.
There must be a 12 step program for people like me. But then, by the time I was done with it, it would be a 7 step program.