> social media mis-use is a symptom of young people having a lack of things like "third spaces" to go to to socialize at
I see all kinds of active third spaces, but never any young people in them.
I get that it is hard to bootstrap now. Trying to convince a 20 year old that they should hang out with a 70 year old to get the ball rolling for more 20 year olds to show up is not an easy sell, but when I was 20 (just before the emergence of social media) these same third spaces were full of people of all ages. It was bootstrapped once upon a time.
You’re 100% right that third places didn’t go anywhere. I do volunteer work and fact is, teens have incredibly short attention spans now due to instant media in their pockets. On the rare occasions I get a volunteer that isn’t a grey beard, the young person (usually dragged to the place by an adult) sits in a corner on their phone. Most put in absolute minimum effort so they can get on their device asap.
The kids aren’t dumb or uninteresting or anything like that, they are just plain addicted to phones. The rare volunteer kid that puts 100% effort in is usually a homeschool type with no electronic devices or someone in the top 1% of their class or something like that.
The attention economy is real, and it’s dominated by phones and by those that were born in it.
Except the biggest drop was among teenage girls. Housing affordability and cost of living isn't usually yet a concern to most teenagers, and to the extent that it is a concern, it is equally a concern to teenage boys who haven't felt the same decline in happiness.
I suspect you're right, in general, but teenage girls may also be more susceptible to "future worry" than the boys are.
Tell the girls that housing will be unobtainable and they start worrying; tell the boys and they laugh. Not saying it's the case (and it's likely that the cause is more social than financial) but it could be.
Right — teenage girls have long been considered to be leading indicator in cultural shifts. So it isn't unexpected that when teenage girls become unhappy that everyone else will slowly start to follow them. It is quite likely that it is going to look a lot worse the next time this evaluation takes place.
But the question is what is it that the teenage girls are seeing that the rest of us are slowly catching up in realizing? The most popular answer is the current social media landscape is creating unhappiness in them (and ultimately the rest of us), but that's the answer given for all woes these days...
Again, it's probably not housing or cost of living. While it is fair to say that teenage girls are not completely removed for that, they're generally not the ones who have to actually face it head on, and these have been considered pressing issues in Canada since before those teenage girls were born! If that made people unhappy, they'd have been unhappy for a long time already.
They are concerns, but not all that closely tied to happiness. Research shows time and time again that deep social connection is the key, if you will, to happiness.
> Research shows time and time again that deep social connection is the key, if you will, to happiness.
Research suggests it, but it does not show it. Psychological research is notoriously unscientific, with most studies not even being replicable because humans are extremely complex and it's basically impossible to design any kind of methodology that concretely controls for all variables, all the more so when we have things like 'ethics' that make it even harder to do controlled resaerch.
It is absolutely possible to be happy without deep social connection. I am an absolute misanthrope, I seriously hate every one of you bastards, but I'm pretty damn happy. The key to my happiness is that I live a comfortable life and have the freedom to spend it creating (and consuming) things I love - art, music, games, software. If I had to instead spend my days labouring on a farm, if I didn't have indoor plumbing and air conditioning, didn't have access to healthcare and stability and security, etc. I would be absolutely miserable. My happiness is only possible due to the great economic conditions and sensible policies of my country.
> I am an absolute misanthrope, I seriously hate every one of you bastards, but I'm pretty damn happy.
Hey, it didn't say deep positive social connection.
Perhaps your hatred is what fuels you and keeps you happy :)
And another question from a ratbastard; have you ever spend a significant time labouring on a farm, or without indoor plumbing and/or air conditioning?
I have, yes. Although born in a wealthy country, I grew up in abject poverty. I wasn't entirely unhappy then, and I do understand how social connection can help make it bearable. But I'm a lot happier now than then, and my happiness no longer depends upon the whims of other people, one of whom in particular betrayed my trust and left me deeply depressed for years. I greatly prefer my happiness being in my own hands, and I really couldn't go back to manual labour now, because there is so much I want to create and already not enough time to do it all; having more time to idly think about all the things I want to create and less time to create them would be torturous.
> It is absolutely possible to be happy without deep social connection.
Well, of course it is. No matter what you think it is that brings happiness to the general population, there will be at least someone who doesn't find happiness in it. There are always outliers.
> If I had to instead spend my days labouring on a farm
Farms are where you find the intersection of all cool tech. I have to wonder how someone who enjoys creating and consuming software would dislike working on a farm. But to each their own.
> No matter what you think it is that brings happiness to the general population, there will be at least someone who doesn't find happiness in it. There are always outliers.
I'm not convinced I'm that much of an psychological outlier, though; I think only my prosperous conditions are themselves a global outlier. I believe that if you gave most people the privilege I have, of having just enough money to pursue the things they love without doing work they don't enjoy, without worrying about being able to afford food, shelter, or medical bills, they would be happy too, with or without social connections.
> Farms are where you find the intersection of all cool tech. I have to wonder how someone who enjoys creating and consuming software would dislike working on a farm.
I need to do intellectually stimulating work to be happy. Repetitive manual labour would drive me insane. My mental image of "labouring on a farm" there was also "poor economic conditions subsistence farming", not "industrial farm with a million dollars worth of cool machinery".
I’m in tech and laboring on my farm are my happiest moments. I love to work hard with my hands. I absolutely hate working with what seems like pointless minutia on a computer but I’m good at it and can’t make a comfortable living farming so I do what I have to do. People are very different so I’m interested to see what their n is in each country. If it’s in the hundreds, this study means nothing.
Especially now that we can render TV ads in realtime on top of real-world objects, but even before, the 7 minutes of actual TV content and 53 minutes of paid commercials exists too. Better known as professional sports. Unlike QVC, a break from the ads is occasionally given when an athlete is interviewed or things like that. Although, granted, one could argue even an interview is trying to advertise the athlete's brand. Still, potentially a reprieve from having to look at advertising in the form of things like slogans and logos.
It's turtles all the way down. If you write your spec in C you can get pretty detailed into how sin is implemented, but not fully. The compiler is going to take your spec and still do things with it that you didn't say, like optimize it in ways you never imagined possible.
If "spec" doesn't imply that, what does it mean to you? Or maybe you are suggesting that C "code" isn't code[1] either?
[1] By the original definition of code that is actually quite true, but I think we can agree the term, as normally used, has evolved over the years?
Trouble is that it takes approximately the same amount of labor for you to send me one letter as it does to send me ten. Mail volume being down 47% doesn't appreciably mean less work.
> ...that don't do the job right.
An understandable outcome when operations is forced to trim fat amid a declining customer base despite requiring approximately just as much work to be done. Meaning that fewer workers have to figure out how to do more, and cutting corners is how that gets done.
> And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing.
Desire is a necessary component in demand, but it also requires willingness at a given price point. If houses are selling for $1,000,000 and you only have $500,000 to spend, then no matter how much you dream every night about having a home, you are not a contributor to demand.
Counterpoint: houses sell for $1,000,000 because there are more people with $500,000 (and every other number less than $1,000,000) who want those houses than there are houses.
Said comment doesn't mention demand. However, it is true that supply and demand normally find equilibrium, which is the concept the comment was trying to describe. Which is the same concept I described. In simple terms, if you have 10 houses for sale (supply), then in a normally functioning market there will only be 10 people with the desire and willingness to buy them (demand). Many more may have the desire to own a home, but factors like price see their willingness disappear.
There are two exceptions:
- Surplus: When the price is too high and is unable to fall. Where supply exceeds demand. This manifests as there being houses trying to be sold, but that nobody wants to buy.
- Shortage: When the price is too low and is unable to rise. Where demand exceeds supply. This manifests in non-price mechanisms taking over. You might, for example, see houses get sold via lottery as a potentially higher bidder is prevented (e.g. the government stepped in and started enforcing a price ceiling) from offering more.
There may be some argument that there is a housing surplus in some markets, where houses are for sale but never find a willing buyer. However, it seems most houses eventually sell. There is likely no argument for there being a housing shortage by the technical definition. If you have unlimited money, you can surely buy any house on the market.
There are always exceptions, but it is pretty safe to say that supply and demand are finding equilibrium in most housing markets.
The opportunity cost has already factored that in. Unless you think cost calculations are arbitrarily forgetting to include certain costs for no reason?
Well for sure in the actual financial models yes, but it's demonstrably true that most HN commenters here do not know this is how to think about the question of returns.
And FWIW "opportunity cost" doesn't really show up as "a cost" in the traditional sense.
> And FWIW "opportunity cost" doesn't really show up as "a cost" in the traditional sense.
I cannot think of any forward-looking situation where opportunity cost doesn't show up. What case are you thinking of? The discussion, of course, is about a forward-looking situation.
In hindsight often one becomes more interested in seeing if the opportunity cost was paid. A common way to calculate that is to forget about cost and only look at expenses. More specifically, income minus expenses. The result of that calculation gives the opportunity realized. This may be what you are thinking of, but the opportunity cost is still there, it's just that the way of looking at it has changed.
> You're much more likely to encounter regressions when doing this under time pressure.
There is nothing to suggest you should wait to optimize under pressure, only that you should optimize only after you have measured. Benchmark tests are still best written during the development cycle, not while running hot in production.
Starting with the naive solution helps quickly ensure that your API is sensible and that your testing/benchmarking is in good shape before you start poking at the hard bits where you are much more likely to screw things up, all while offering a baseline score to prove that your optimizations are actually necessary and an improvement.
I see all kinds of active third spaces, but never any young people in them.
I get that it is hard to bootstrap now. Trying to convince a 20 year old that they should hang out with a 70 year old to get the ball rolling for more 20 year olds to show up is not an easy sell, but when I was 20 (just before the emergence of social media) these same third spaces were full of people of all ages. It was bootstrapped once upon a time.
Why did the young people stop coming?
reply