tapp

> It was just as hard 30 years ago as it is now. As it was 300 years ago. 3000 even.

I understand what you're saying, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that dynamics have changed - and we don't need to go back 30 years to see it.

As recently as 5 or 6 years ago, I would quite often strike up conversations with strangers at the bus stop or on the train or at the post office.

Usually these conversations would last for just a few minutes, sometimes an hour or more, and in a handful of instances I made a long term friend.

I find that this is vastly harder to do now, because nearly everyone in those common spaces is now engrossed by their phone. This changes the dynamics of interacting and striking up a conversation substantially by adding a lot of social friction.

Historically, the interaction was something like: slightly awkward silence -> random comment about the weather or some equally anodyne topic to break the awkward silence -> possibly a rewarding conversation.

Now, the awkward silence never occurs in the first place. It's been entirely replaced by everyone scrolling the feeds on their phones. To start a conversation, you have to proactively interrupt what the person is doing and ask for their attention.

What's more, even if you successfully navigate that dynamic and start a conversation, the soft dings and tapping reminders from the phone constantly pull people's attention back to the virtual from the physical.

Smartphones have been a boon in myriad ways, but I do miss the chances to engage in face-to-face conversation with strangers in the real world that existed before they commanded every second of our spare attention.

I'd add another factor the author did not mention: the market in which those "Elite U.S. men" compete is vastly more competitive than it was a generation ago.

I run a small technology business and have thought about ways to try and reduce the number of hours I work. One of the principal challenges is that every day I am fending off competition from offshore firms with lower cost structures and VC funded startups with resources to burn. That competition dictates a certain tempo whether I like it or not.

What is the difference between "hoarding cash" and "saving" besides the fact that one sounds evil and the other virtuous?

(I don't intend that as a rhetorical question - I'm sincerely asking.)

Is the distinction really as black-and-white as you suggest?

One example: Flatiron (Google Ventures' biggest health tech investment, if I'm not mistaken) is often described as 'Google for cancer data.' In fact, their mission is "organizing the world's real-world oncology data."

This is clever. I'm curious if you've sold any?

Do you have a source for this?

My company has been looking into implementing something similar and I'd be interested in reading more. Thanks!

> The card layout is generally big no-no in design community.

Interesting. Could you provide any links/citations for this?

I ask because it feels like practically every designer I talk with these days wants to force a card layout onto everything (even text-oriented sites) and I'd love to hear the other side.

> This is the kind of statement that makes me long for a faceless, impersonal ISP.

Slightly OT, but this statement reminded me of a question I've wondered about before and researched without finding a definitive answer:

Your average ISP probably has a lot of data which, in the wrong hands, would be excellent blackmail material. What regulations (if any) prevent the sale of that data to whoever wants it?

Why is the timing good?

I'm not disagreeing with you - just curious if you're referring to news or some current event of which I'm unaware.