If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Lifehacking actually ruins your life   (slate.com) divider line 86
    More: Ironic, buzzwords  
•       •       •

19458 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jul 2013 at 12:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-29 02:16:41 PM  
Lifehacking Tip:

Masturbate in the shower.

Lotion-soaps as lube, all right there where you need 'em;
Shoot it anywhere you like, no spill worries;
Easy cleanup - you're already in there for a shower.


It's going to save millions of man-hours which can be applied to building a better Homeland.
 
2013-07-29 02:47:55 PM  

DubtodaIll: Thoguh: Using the word "lifehack" should be a punchable offense.

That.


My new "strategy" is simple and efficient: if you say "lifehack" out loud in my presence I will "axehack" you until you stop.

I'm not unreasonable, I will make exceptions for people who only said the word because they were quoting someone else or commenting on how awful the word is.
 
2013-07-29 02:51:53 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: Thoguh: Using the word "lifehack" should be a punchable offense.

Synonymous with "by using this one weird trick".


If we're gonna talk pet peeves (and honestly, what ELSE is this thread for), the one that really makes my eyes twitch painfully is "hate" as in ads that say "Doctors HATE her!" to promote some health product.

I'm not even sure what would be a suitable punishment for that, but I'm reasonably certain that both flames and stinging insects are involved.
 
2013-07-29 02:59:06 PM  
I hate when people say "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." If that's the case, what is the word for people who are unable to think rationally? Anyone who repeats this trope should be kicked in the package as a result of saying it until they stop.
 
2013-07-29 03:07:49 PM  

ciberido: SovietCanuckistan: Thoguh: Using the word "lifehack" should be a punchable offense.

Synonymous with "by using this one weird trick".

If we're gonna talk pet peeves (and honestly, what ELSE is this thread for), the one that really makes my eyes twitch painfully is "hate" as in ads that say "Doctors HATE her!" to promote some health product.

I'm not even sure what would be a suitable punishment for that, but I'm reasonably certain that both flames and stinging insects are involved.


I know a suitable punishment. It's a weird trick, actually.
 
2013-07-29 03:13:26 PM  

NorCalLos: I hate when people say "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." If that's the case, what is the word for people who are unable to think rationally? Anyone who repeats this trope should be kicked in the package as a result of saying it until they stop.


Funny how saying that phrase doesn't really ever seem to change much.
 
2013-07-29 03:40:00 PM  
As "lifehacking" becomes an industry with its own blogs and book-length guides

Because "Hints from Heloise" never happened. No one has ever had "useful tips".

/another "quality" article from Slate
 
2013-07-29 03:43:43 PM  
/420
 
2013-07-29 03:43:59 PM  
Sline:
img.gawkerassets.com

How is this more useful than standing up the bottles?
 
2013-07-29 03:48:04 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Sline:
[img.gawkerassets.com image 320x253]

How is this more useful than standing up the bottles?


assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-07-29 04:02:14 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Sline:
[img.gawkerassets.com image 320x253]

How is this more useful than standing up the bottles?


Dont have to raise a shelf halfway up the fridge to fit bottles under, also if you drink more than one kind of beer you can get different ones out without having to dig in the back and probably knocking a bunch over.
 
2013-07-29 04:22:29 PM  

Cyno01: ArcadianRefugee: Sline:
[img.gawkerassets.com image 320x253]

How is this more useful than standing up the bottles?

Dont have to raise a shelf halfway up the fridge to fit bottles under, also if you drink more than one kind of beer you can get different ones out without having to dig in the back and probably knocking a bunch over.


Ya, but how much space do you need in the fridge? There's only so much been you can drink in one sitting.
 
2013-07-29 04:45:03 PM  

ArcadianRefugee


How is this more useful than standing up the bottles?


The bottles are more stable. On a wire shelf like that, the narrow base of the bottles can be a problem.

Those binder clips also work well on potato chip bags, as a good way to keep video/network/power cables in place, and as a quick method to splint a broken finger.

Okay, I made that last one up but the other two are valid.
 
2013-07-29 04:45:32 PM  

Dafatone: Every technological advance pitched as a way to save time, increase efficiency, and take a load off of workers, in the history of time, winds up making workers work harder for less.

Cotton gin, assembly line, computers, internet, etc.

If it lets you get more done in less time, you're expected to have more total output, not the same output in less time.  Always.  Since forever.


My favorite example of the is laundry.  Automatic washing machines were touted as saving time.  But we spend just as much time doing laundry each week as we need before they were invented.  It's just that the standard of "acceptably clean clothing" has adjusted.
 
2013-07-29 04:50:50 PM  

ciberido: My favorite example of the is laundry.  Automatic washing machines were touted as saving time.  But we spend just as much time doing laundry each week as we need before they were invented.  It's just that the standard of "acceptably clean clothing" has adjusted.


If you do nothing else while the machine is running, sure...
 
2013-07-29 04:53:25 PM  

ciberido: Dafatone: Every technological advance pitched as a way to save time, increase efficiency, and take a load off of workers, in the history of time, winds up making workers work harder for less.

Cotton gin, assembly line, computers, internet, etc.

If it lets you get more done in less time, you're expected to have more total output, not the same output in less time.  Always.  Since forever.

My favorite example of the is laundry.  Automatic washing machines were touted as saving time.  But we spend just as much time doing laundry each week as we need before they were invented.  It's just that the standard of "acceptably clean clothing" has adjusted.


Maybe for you it has.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-29 05:52:19 PM  

ciberido: Dafatone: Every technological advance pitched as a way to save time, increase efficiency, and take a load off of workers, in the history of time, winds up making workers work harder for less.

Cotton gin, assembly line, computers, internet, etc.

If it lets you get more done in less time, you're expected to have more total output, not the same output in less time.  Always.  Since forever.

My favorite example of the is laundry.  Automatic washing machines were touted as saving time.  But we spend just as much time doing laundry each week as we need before they were invented.  It's just that the standard of "acceptably clean clothing" has adjusted.


Let me guess.  You're the type that will put his/her clothes in the washer/dryer and then just sit and stare at it until it's done?

I've never manually washed my clothes to compare the times, but I'd bet that washing a load of clothes by hand takes longer than the 10-20 seconds it takes to load the machine, add soap, and press a button.
 
2013-07-29 06:03:19 PM  

drop: ciberido: Dafatone: Every technological advance pitched as a way to save time, increase efficiency, and take a load off of workers, in the history of time, winds up making workers work harder for less.

Cotton gin, assembly line, computers, internet, etc.

If it lets you get more done in less time, you're expected to have more total output, not the same output in less time.  Always.  Since forever.

My favorite example of the is laundry.  Automatic washing machines were touted as saving time.  But we spend just as much time doing laundry each week as we need before they were invented.  It's just that the standard of "acceptably clean clothing" has adjusted.

Let me guess.  You're the type that will put his/her clothes in the washer/dryer and then just sit and stare at it until it's done?

I've never manually washed my clothes to compare the times, but I'd bet that washing a load of clothes by hand takes longer than the 10-20 seconds it takes to load the machine, add soap, and press a button.


Washing by hand doesn't take long at all, especially when you own two shirts.  Five minutes, tops, then hang it up.  But we have a lot more clothing now, which is both a cause and an effect of the washing machine.  And, as someone mentioned before, some idiots don't like their women to look like Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan.  Some people also do not like the natural smell of humans.  (When they're healthy, I actually rather like it--but not "four cloves of garlic" healthy; there is such a thing as overdoing it.)
 
2013-07-29 06:13:31 PM  
Five minutes "tops" is still 15 times longer than it takes me.  I can go from two shirts to four to six to a dozen and it still only takes 20 seconds.  How long does it take you?

I don't see the argument you're trying to make, and you're certainly not supporting the position that it takes "just as long" now to wash clothes as it used to in ye olde daies, because it's patently untrue -- for any number of clothing items, from one to fifty.
 
2013-07-29 06:23:20 PM  

drop: ciberido: Dafatone: Every technological advance pitched as a way to save time, increase efficiency, and take a load off of workers, in the history of time, winds up making workers work harder for less.

Cotton gin, assembly line, computers, internet, etc.

If it lets you get more done in less time, you're expected to have more total output, not the same output in less time.  Always.  Since forever.

My favorite example of the is laundry.  Automatic washing machines were touted as saving time.  But we spend just as much time doing laundry each week as we need before they were invented.  It's just that the standard of "acceptably clean clothing" has adjusted.

Let me guess.  You're the type that will put his/her clothes in the washer/dryer and then just sit and stare at it until it's done?

I've never manually washed my clothes to compare the times, but I'd bet that washing a load of clothes by hand takes longer than the 10-20 seconds it takes to load the machine, add soap, and press a button.


Since this is the second time in this thread this bizzare accusation has been aimed at me, I guess I should respond:

First off, no, I do not watch my clothes being washed.

Second, no, outside of camping or trekking or bicycle touring, I never washed my own clothes by hand, so I'm no authority on how long washing clothes by hand takes.  I have lived in third-world countries were laundry was done by hand, but there I could pay someone else to wash my laundry for me.  I really couldn't tell you how much time they spent.

Third, I got the main point (that we spend as much time per week washing clothes now as we did before the washing machine was invented) off a website.  And no, I don't remember which website, because it didn't occur me at the time that anyone would take umbrage at such a simple fact.  But here and here are two websites that give you an idea of how much time we spend doing laundry today, if you really think it's worth arguing over, and here's something on laundry in the middle ages.

Fourth, I do have to wonder why people are offended by this claim.  However inaccurate it may be, why does it offend you two so much that you wish to attack me personally?  Is this spillover from arguing with your spouse about housework or something?
 
2013-07-29 06:24:22 PM  

drop: Five minutes "tops" is still 15 times longer than it takes me.  I can go from two shirts to four to six to a dozen and it still only takes 20 seconds.  How long does it take you?

I don't see the argument you're trying to make, and you're certainly not supporting the position that it takes "just as long" now to wash clothes as it used to in ye olde daies, because it's patently untrue -- for any number of clothing items, from one to fifty.


Wow.  I never imagined anyone could be THIS defensive about laundry.  You have issues.
 
2013-07-29 06:31:44 PM  

Wangiss: Washing by hand doesn't take long at all, especially when you own two shirts. Five minutes, tops, then hang it up.


Which would be awesome if you lived on your own. Years ago, though, you were washing for you, your husband, and the passel of kids you kept pumping out to help work the farm. "Five minutes" wouldn't cut it, especially if you had to walk a ways down to the river.

Now, you just pop the stuff in the machine and go do something else. Couldn't exactly go do the cooking or house cleaning while you were hand-washing your clothes.
 
2013-07-29 06:33:47 PM  

ciberido: Fourth, I do have to wonder why people are offended by this claim.  However inaccurate it may be


You're saying you're not offended by inaccurate claims?  That doesn't sound particularly healthy for an individual or a species that intends to survive.  I wonder just as much about people who aren't offended by inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or outright deception.  Any rational being should be offended by such things, no matter how mundane the subject matter.
 
2013-07-29 06:33:47 PM  

drop: Five minutes "tops" is still 15 times longer than it takes me.  I can go from two shirts to four to six to a dozen and it still only takes 20 seconds.  How long does it take you?

I don't see the argument you're trying to make, and you're certainly not supporting the position that it takes "just as long" now to wash clothes as it used to in ye olde daies, because it's patently untrue -- for any number of clothing items, from one to fifty.


Argument?  I was just stating a fact.  I'm not trying to threaten your way of life.  But if you want your favorite shirt clean so you can wear it again quickly (say, to an event after a baby puked on it), you can hand-launder it in one to two minutes in the sink and then tumble-dry it with a dry towel.  Then you get your shirt back in ten minutes instead of an hour, if that's all you need.  There are times when you need a solution for a situation outside the norm.
 
2013-07-29 06:37:23 PM  

drop: ciberido: Fourth, I do have to wonder why people are offended by this claim.  However inaccurate it may be

You're saying you're not offended by inaccurate claims?  That doesn't sound particularly healthy for an individual or a species that intends to survive.  I wonder just as much about people who aren't offended by inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or outright deception.  Any rational being should be offended by such things, no matter how mundane the subject matter.


Well, when I get my Daily Report done at work, and there's an inaccuracy, my boss gets all huffy.  But I just issue a correction.  It's inaccurate, and worthy of correction, but it doesn't offend me or even show up as a blip on my emotional radar.  There all kinds of different people.
 
2013-07-29 06:54:24 PM  

drop: Five minutes "tops" is still 15 times longer than it takes me.  I can go from two shirts to four to six to a dozen and it still only takes 20 seconds.  How long does it take you?

I don't see the argument you're trying to make, and you're certainly not supporting the position that it takes "just as long" now to wash clothes as it used to in ye olde daies, because it's patently untrue -- for any number of clothing items, from one to fifty.


It may be accurate simply because now-a-days a person may wash a 7shirts, seven pants and 7 everything else, which then have to be put away afterward. And that assumes minimal folding/ no ironing, and other things that could quickly eat up time.
Before they may have only been washing 2 of each. Additionally we probably wash more things more often (sheets, towels, coats.)  We probably smell better too.

Likely the logic would be: The total time spent doing laundry is the same now as it was 50 years ago.
However now-a-days more clothing gets washed (since folks have more) and it gets washed after 1-2 uses.

That's not a lot different from work commutes over time, where the average has been something like half an hour for the last hundred years, people just moved further and further away from work.

As far as the quality argument goes, in my opinion we are giving something up for that convenience.
I've washed my clothes by hand, and even my unskilled hands were able to clean my clothes better than my machine does and accomplish it in a reasonable amount of time. Someone who knew what they were doing could know one out in a few seconds. One thing I did notice is that socks especially end up MUCH cleaner after hand washing.

I still use a machine at home though. They get "clean enough" and when my socks get too dirty, I'll just buy new ones.
 
2013-07-29 07:36:12 PM  

Wangiss


But if you want your favorite shirt clean so you can wear it again quickly (say, to an event after a baby puked on it), you can hand-launder it in one to two minutes in the sink and then tumble-dry it with a dry towel. Then you get your shirt back in ten minutes instead of an hour, if that's all you need. There are times when you need a solution for a situation outside the norm.


The outside-the-norm solution here seems to be to have more than one such shirt.
 
2013-07-29 07:41:58 PM  

mr0x: Guntram Shatterhand: Thoguh: Using the word "lifehack" should be a punchable offense.

Along with 'multitasking.'  Both are the same way of micromanaging time.

Actually, the original idea of multi-tasking was more like batching in computer science. It means you do something else only when the IO system kicks in (IO is thousands of times slower than CPU).

Basically means, you keep doing one thing until you reach a point where you need someone else's input or some interruption you can't control, you switch tasks.

So, the original idea behind multi-tasking was to switch to another task until your portion is done instead of twiddling your thumbs and fixating on a single task. Not, the modern equivalent of juggling ten tasks at the same time.


This. Human beings are really bad at "multitasking." As in, everything suffers when you try to do everything at once. But getting work done while you are waiting for a phone call or an email? That's actual multitasking, and it's very effective.
 
2013-07-29 07:42:54 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Wangiss

But if you want your favorite shirt clean so you can wear it again quickly (say, to an event after a baby puked on it), you can hand-launder it in one to two minutes in the sink and then tumble-dry it with a dry towel. Then you get your shirt back in ten minutes instead of an hour, if that's all you need. There are times when you need a solution for a situation outside the norm.


The outside-the-norm solution here seems to be to have more than one such shirt.


OR, you can buy a stackable washer/dryer for your car/bike/train.
 
2013-07-29 07:45:03 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: As "lifehacking" becomes an industry with its own blogs and book-length guides

Because "Hints from Heloise" never happened. No one has ever had "useful tips".

/another "quality" article from Slate


Pretty much this. Every kid thinks they invented the world, I guess. It's not like Women's Magazines and Reader's Digest haven't been doing just this since the dawn of time.
 
2013-07-29 07:46:44 PM  

Dafatone: Every technological advance pitched as a way to save time, increase efficiency, and take a load off of workers, in the history of time, winds up making workers work harder for less.

Cotton gin, assembly line, computers, internet, etc.

If it lets you get more done in less time, you're expected to have more total output, not the same output in less time.  Always.  Since forever.


And that's why we don't live in mudthatched huts.
 
2013-07-29 08:04:13 PM  
According to the article it's not lifehacking that ruins your life, it's addiction to lifehacking. Gee, people found another way to fix trivial problems to avoid dealing with real problems, news at 11.
 
2013-07-29 11:00:04 PM  

ciberido: If it lets you get more done in less time, you're expected to have more total output, not the same output in less time.


More done in less time means just that; more done in less time. So long as you meet those two qualifications, nothing else matters.

Also:

ciberido: If it lets you get more done in less time


"Letting you" and "expecting of you" are two kinda different things. And by "kinda" I mean "completely".

ciberido: But here


The Daily Mail? Really?! "The average mother spends five months of her life doing laundry, says a study" they don't bother to cite. Also, five months is (5 months @ 30 days per month @ 24 hours per day) 3600 hours. Over the course of one's life.

ciberido: and here


And the Mirror? Those are your two sources?

are two websites that give you an idea of how much time we spend doing laundry today, if you really think it's worth arguing over, and here's something on laundry in the middle ages.

Well, according to your Mirror source, people spend 5.561 hours per week washing clothes. Comparing this to the Daily Mail's statement, we have (5.561 hours per week, 52.177 weeks in a year, 80 years) [we'll say an 80 year lifespan] over 23,212 hours! 23212 vs 3600.

Should check your sources better. And use better sources.

From your "medieval" source, we have
...it does not appear that medieval people washed their clothes as frequently as wash ours today.

a bit about owning very few clothes, and then
...the clothes must have become filthy and just stayed that way.

It then goes on to note that laundry services were available, and asks how such services could exist if people had so few clothes?
One possible anser is that people of the Middle Ages regularly washed or sent to the laundry only part of their clothes, the linen garments worn closest to the body...while cleaning the outer garments more infrequently.

So, they spent less time doing laundry because they just really didn't do much laundry.

And, if we were to compare, how much underwear do you think you could get shoved into a washing machine? I.e., how "fast" could you clean 50 undergarments?

(Also, asking you if you just sit and stare at your laundry, as Lister-esque as it is, is not an attack on you.)

Now, on the flipside:

"Ha-Joon Chang, a Cambridge economist ... argues that the washing machine was more revolutionary than the Internet. "In short, the washing machine has allowed women to get into the labor market so that we have nearly doubled the work force."" (Source)

Another source: Hans Rosling (medical doctor, academic, statistician, and Professor of International Health at Karolinska Institute)speaking at TEDwomen 2010, makes the case that the washing machine was the greatest invention of the industrial revolution (before going on about green energy and such) and how it gave his mother time to read to him, and her to learn English. (Video)

(And, you'll be happy to note, the guy's grandmother sat and "watched the entire washing program." :) )
Not an exact "number of hours per week" from either, but both make the case that it obviously allowed more free time.
 
2013-07-30 01:52:32 AM  
Dare I say this has been among the dumbest arguments I've ever seen on fark? Impressive!
 
2013-07-30 01:55:06 AM  
ITT: People getting all "someone is wrong on the internet" over laundry
 
2013-07-30 10:48:03 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Wangiss

But if you want your favorite shirt clean so you can wear it again quickly (say, to an event after a baby puked on it), you can hand-launder it in one to two minutes in the sink and then tumble-dry it with a dry towel. Then you get your shirt back in ten minutes instead of an hour, if that's all you need. There are times when you need a solution for a situation outside the norm.


The outside-the-norm solution here seems to be to have more than one such shirt.


A good tuxedo shirt is $105.  I guess if you can afford one, you can afford two.  But some of us like to save money by knowing how to do things.
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report