awesome things like making it illegal to sell Word and therefore Office
How about just making your open source alternative to Word and Office that much better and competing with them?
* edit: downmodded without justification. Wonderful. Which just forces the quality of discussion on HN WAY down. Ironically, understanding that concept requires understanding incentives, which are the basis of patents in the first place :)
"I had in mind that all things being otherwise equal and being occupied with more or less the same stuff for the duration of the existence of said list."
I don't think this is the criterion you want - if I won the lottery, for example, my to-do list would explode with all the new possibilities presented before me; however, if that happened, I certainly wouldn't consider it a bad day. :)
Inheriting money might make someone a millionaire - that doesn't make "Have a rich uncle" a viable financial plan. "Having a rich uncle" therefore "does not work". The same goes for making a simple list of your three goals for the day - for 99% of people, it just doesn't work because your simple plan is most likely going to be blown to hell by some emergency/meeting/new project that just landed on your plate. I believe you when you say that it works for you, but it just doesn't work for the vast majority of people.
" i think you missed the joke about being productive and not achieving anything"
I got the joke - you almost certainly meant that someone who is "being productive and not achieving anything" is engaging in busywork but not doing anything worthwhile, which would mean that they are active (i.e. they are not procrastinating), but they are not properly prioritizing the actions they take. I covered that case explicitly.
"Honestly if you were to work like this you may as well work for a big corporation where you can save yourself the hassle of having to audit your time – as some jerk of a manager will do it for you."
Your managers have other crap to do than to watch what you're doing 24/7 (or "8/5" for that matter) - they're much more likely to just hand you something so they can get it off their own plate and just expect you to handle it.
" You’ll end up spending your entire day “being productive” without actually achieving anything."
"Being productive" == achieving things. If you're not achieving something, you're not being productive (either because you're not doing anything [procrastination] or because you are doing the wrong things [i.e. your priorities are not set properly])
"Rather than this stupid auditing crap, come up with 3 tasks that are most important to your success. Do each one first thing in the day (my day is backwards btw, as in my day starts at around 9pm at night, im a bit wierd). Take a break in between each task and then feel free to procrastinate after."
This DOES NOT WORK. The only case in which this is a viable strategy is if you work for yourself and have no hard deadlines and you just want to keep yourself from reading reddit all day long - it doesn't work in most real-world situations. Like for example, your boss puts another project on your plate. But that never happens...
Take the advice of the late Randy Pausch - keep a time journal [http://www.scribd.com/doc/2519267/Time-Log-Sheet], and REVIEW that data (the data is useless if you just fill out time journals and let them sit in some folder somewhere).
Taking out the trash is not intrinsically pleasurable, like playing Call of Duty, or masturbating. Or masturbating while playing Call of Duty. You take out the trash, study instead of playing games, or save your money for the longer-term effects, which is precisely my point. Saving money sucks in the short term, which by "Hedonistic GTD" would disqualify it for almost everyone.
The article is pretty much contentless fluff, and would be made 100x better if it was just replaced with the quote "do what you love and the money will follow." Still debatable, but at least it has brevity going for it.
You might argue that employment is optional, but this is not the case in practice especially if you have a family to support.
OK so let's engage in a thought experiment - we make employment optional, so you don't have to work even if you have a family to support. But now, in order to get the resources to support your family, you have to force someone else to do something they don't want to do.
So protecting you from the "slavery" of employment necessarily implies some degree of slavery for some third party, because the resources needed to support your family don't come from nowhere. That's really not fair to the third party, don't you think?
How about just making your open source alternative to Word and Office that much better and competing with them?
* edit: downmodded without justification. Wonderful. Which just forces the quality of discussion on HN WAY down. Ironically, understanding that concept requires understanding incentives, which are the basis of patents in the first place :)