We noticed before we had our first that our friends who were divorced with kids actually got out once in a while, because they shared custody. So we have what amounts to an oncall schedule - certain days I'm 100% in charge of kiddo, certain days he is. There's some exceptions for commute stuff - daycare is closer to my work- but this means you sleep in on your weekend day off, and you can schedule nights to game and hang out with friends, etc.
Most of the time we aren't out; kiddo is fun. But the difference between hanging out with a kid and being in charge of them getting their needs met is pretty significant.
Re: commute, I'm hauling the kiddo in with me on my bicycle, dropping her off at daycare, and heading to my work. It's exercise and commute together and I love it. It's about 40 minutes one way, so I have to be careful about not over training, but it's awesome otherwise.
Edit: We also do side projects on our off nights. And we pay people to clean/do the yard work, which also does a lot for free time.
I've been reading HN for a while now- I discovered Graham's essays in high school, a year or two before he started the y combinator. I was a soon-to-be-aerospace-engineering major, then.
I haven't really programmed since my freshmen year, when I switched to anthropology. Had an interesting year, post graduation, doing archaeology for CRM firms. Then I decided I kinda liked getting paid, and now I'm doing instructional design for a retailer. I am slightly less broke.
I am also going, "Hm, all my engineering co-horts are not broke. And jeez, why do I read HN all the time? Maybe I should start playing around, again..."
Well, yes, they could have asked for any number of things, but the end decision still rested with him. Which means, yes, actually, they did have to accept his "no." If he refused to answer any further questions except with "no," they would have to accept that too.
I don't mean accept in the sense of "be at peace with the decision." I mean accept in the sense of "there ain't shit you can do about it, kiddo."
The subtler point of this article is that a simple no is a good test of your authority- service personnel, students, people he had power over; they had to except his "no." Girlfriend? Not so much.
The power in question isn't the added power of using the word- it's the way the word reveals the power dynamics at play. He didn't gain more authority by using the word; the word revealed to him his authority and its limits.
This article makes me smile because I am a Hacker News groupie.
People can passionately follow art or music or movies and no one thinks them odd for not producing some of the same- that's how I feel about programming. I just like following it, especially the underlying philosophies. I'm an armchair hacker- oh, I've put a few things together in my day but they're the programming equivalent of Harry/Draco slash.
I guess this means Y Combinator's Hacker News has an official fangirl ;)
Objectively... funny? As in, if the entire human race disappeared and no other beings capable of abstract thought existed, certain things would have the qualities of funny?
Expound.
Also, "there are certain words that are used differently than what they actually mean." Huh? What is the inherit meaning of a word? Do words exist somewhere, true, pure, fixed in meaning, waiting to be used- and they are used, horribly, by every passing stranger, growing uglier and more cynical each day as they begin to believe the lies about the true nature of their "meaning?" (Yes, I just conflated linguistics and prostitution.)
I think your distinction between objective and subjective is really the distinction between popular and particular. For example, I know the Mona Lisa is popularly meaningful, and I acknowledge that, but I in particular am unmoved. It is a perfect way to avoid argument. Who tries to avoid argument on the internet? You are no sage.
However, your use of the word "funny" in the first paragraph to mean "humor," and then in the third paragraph to mean "a little off" is actually quite clever, as you were discussing novel breakages and the unexpected ways in which words acquire new meanings. You cunning linguist, you ;)
I'm amused that the author seems to think that precious metals are in some way more real than paper money. They are limited in physical presence, perhaps, yes. But their worth is no less determined by human whim than a series of binary jokes laughing their way through the Wall Street infrastructure. Money is one of the ultimate human abstracts.
I'm a little worried that he thinks it's a good idea for the computer to sign the "legalese" contract for you... I realize very few people actually read them, but do you really want the lawyers to know that not only will you probably sign something without looking, it's the default setting on your machine?
If you are interested in time and multitasking, look at some of anthropologist Edward Hall's stuff.
Monochronism and Polychronism have been co-opted to apply to individuals but they were coined by Hall to describe patterns of culture. A highly monochronic culture would be Germany; things happen one at a time, from start to finish, where a new thing starts. A highly polychronic culture would be a lot of latin cultures, where whatever is most important that second takes precedence, no matter when you started it (this is usually determined socially; family>customer, for example).
Most cultures are more complex than that, though. Japanese business tends to be highly polychronic in the planning stages, where a consensus must be reached and all the time in the world is taken to reach it. However, once the decision has been made, the implementation is not only wicked fast but highly monochronic.
He's worth looking into if you really want to make the leap from how multi-tasking affects individuals to how it affects complex systems.