"We live in an amazing world and it's wasted on the crappiest generation..." | Hacker News Reader

"We live in an amazing world and it's wasted on the crappiest generation..."

youtube.com

268 pointsjamesbressi95 comments

Open articleView on HN

For reference:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=494066 42 comments

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1003875 2 comments

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=495561 2 comments

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=474588 1 comment

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=918637 0 comments

Geez, I can't BELIEVE that my incredible world-wide communication network containing the knowledge of ALL humanity and powering the future .... has REDUNDANT content! It sucks!

Don't know why you were downvoted. Your post is on message.

My sarcasm detector is off the scale!!!

This video gets reposted here about once every three to six months, and I upvote it every time. To be clear about how deeply I appreciate this video, I am a member of this "crappiest generation". I'm 24. Hi-speed cable and mobile phones became ubiquitous while I was growing up, and I know that I take my entire life brutally for granted. Anyone in my generation who watches this video and says, "What a jerk! I don't do that!" is either a filthy liar, or they weren't born into the predominantly white-upper-middle-class privileges that Louis C.K. is making fun of.

This usually is posted with the title, "Everything is amazing and no one is happy," which I think is far more poignant and fitting, because while my peers are largely guilty of the kind of "convenience entitlement complex" that Louis C.K. is talking about, it is hardly restricted to just us. The fact is, we do live in amazing world, where man can soar above the clouds while taking a dump, and satellites that cost scrillions of dollars to get into geosynchronous orbit are used to send naked pictures zipping across continents in the blink of an eye. I love this video so much, because if you listen with an open mind, it forces you to take a step back and look at what we're really missing.

It makes sense to me. Happiness doesn't come from amazing "things". We can fly but we are coerced into constantly hating our bodies, poisoning ourselves, living in fear of things we don't understand, and viewing our neighbors as competitors.

Our technology is amazing, but our cultural practices have evolved to make us miserable. Almost every enduring widespread cultural practice in the U.S. evolved and thrived precisely because it fostered mass spending. The cultural practices that made us healthy and self sufficient have long since died out.

Darwin is dead, long live Darwin.

Plato said rich people couldn't be virtuous, probably for this reason.

While the style and content of complaining varies up and down the economic ladder, the proportion of people who whine incessantly about everyday inconveniences seems about the same.

If everyone's unhappy about it, though, maybe the world isn't so amazing, subjectively speaking. That's the usual assumption in entrepreneurship, anyway: If you've produced a product you think everyone should love, and they don't love it, maybe something's wrong with the product, not the people.

Yes, it is only this latest generation that takes things for granted.

I wonder if he wakes up every morning utterly flabbergasted that his home is comfortably warm, he has clean running water, and wild animals haven't tried to kill him in the night. Somehow I doubt it.

Spending a summer in Alaska can help give you an appreciation. I was there in 1992.

Me before Alaska: "I'll never be a sell out."

Me during Alaska: Covered in cold fish slime mixed with refrigerated seawater. Shivering my ass off shoveling crushed ice in the back of a refrigerated trailer. Sliding around on my belly in a tender boat hold with a gaff, wrangling 75 pound Halibut into a cargo net. Living in a tent on the beach, and going into town to make a phone call and pay $1.75 to take a shower. (Not an everyday occurrence!)

Me after Alaska: "A nice cozy job in an climate controlled office? Sounds nice!"

The guy who was my skipper for a very short time? He lived in the southwest near Dillingham and there were no roads near his house. He had no running water or electricity. To check his snail mail, he had to go down to the river, untie his boat and travel 2 miles downstream.

(Not sure, but I think there were basically no roads anywhere.)

Yeah, no kidding. Grow up in a third world country. You'll realize what luxury you live in. Hungry? Drive down the street for delicious fastfood. Even the poorest among us have electricity, running water, tv, computer, internet, etc. Most I didn't have when growing up.

Dinesh D'Souza asked someone why they wanted to immigrate to the US. Answer: "I want to go to a place where the poor people are fat and own TVs and VCRs."

If you ask immigrants who've lived in the U.S. ~10 years or so about the pros/cons of it, though, you get much more mixed answers. Some are still uniformly positive about how much better the U.S. is than where they came from, but many aren't.

And sometimes it just seems sort of incomparable. My mom grew up in a rural village of about 30 families in Greece in the 1950s that had no electricity, running water, TVs, etc. She objectively realizes it was a "deprived" childhood by modern standards, but she doesn't subjectively remember it being bad at all. It's just what life was like: you got water from the well, and it was fine, because that's what everyone does, and there was no sense that you were a poor person for not having running water, because nobody had running water, not in your village or in the neighboring villages. And subjectively she even thinks some things were better, like the community and social support you get from a close-knit group of 30 families who all know each other / bake bread at the community oven together / etc. I doubt she would go back to that lifestyle today given the choice, but she doesn't have an "omg that sucked, I'm so glad I'm now in the U.S. in a suburban home" view of it either.

Phillip Greenspun talks about some of this stuff in one of his posts -- the one where he figures billionaires could create human happiness by building Mexican style villages in the US. (Cost effective, at only $27,000 per capita!)

The key idea: we in the US are wealthy materially, but impoverished in community and human contact.

>The key idea: we in the US are wealthy materially, but impoverished in community and human contact.

Amen.

I grew up in a subsidized development. Tiny houses (850-1000sqft) by the standards then (1978), never mind today. Everyone knew everyone else on the block. Everyone's kids played with everyone else's kids. When someone built a pool, or a deck, or sided their house all sorts of neighbors went over to bring food for a picnic and to help out.

A few years ago I moved towards Boston and lived in a gated apartment community that originally was supposed to be sold as condos. Most of the new tenants were those ditching their homes in the economic downturn, but still a lot of parked M3s, M5s, 911s and even a Ferrari 430.

I took a walk every day. When passing someone else I would say hi and not even be acknowledged. When someone's dog was loose and I went to leasing to reunite him with the owner, they seemed to be BOTHERED that someone interacted with their dog. When I attempted to introduce myself to the neighbors with a fresh batch of brownies, only 1 of 4 neighbors answered the door. 360 units, all filled, and no one can be bothered to interact.

When someone moved in they had knocked on doors to see if there was a vacuum they could borrow. I was the only person that answered the door, and I certainly loaned him my vac. Ended up being the only neighbor I ended up getting to know.

I ended up moving into the city later on. Nice place, and it's a building. At least with the forced running into people in the halls people say hello, but no one will hold a door for you. Oh well, at least everyone's dog is friendly and likes to say hello.

Friends who come over to visit notice the same thing. And when I go their tenements, every one of their neighbors I encounter is friendly. I'm honestly curious what psychological/sociological phenomenons cause this.

Yeah, it's strange.

I spent some time in Turkey and you get to talk more with people in the street than with some of your neighbours back home.

> If you ask immigrants who've lived in the U.S. ~10 years or so about the pros/cons of it, though, you get much more mixed answers. Some are still uniformly positive about how much better the U.S. is than where they came from, but many aren't.

Then why are they still here?

When someone says that things are better somewhere else, I always ask why they're not at that somewhere else. Almost all the time, it turns out that whatever it is that they're complaining about is less important to them than something that they get where they currently are. Often they're embarrassed by what that says about their priorities.

Often inertia: moving internationally takes a lot of effort, and often money, and is disruptive to careers/schooling/etc. But a decent number of immigrants to the U.S. do leave again later. There's a particularly large number of Chinese immigrants who've returned to China in the past 10 years.

And in any case, not being "uniformly positive" doesn't require being uniformly negative. They may consider the U.S., overall, a better place to live, while on the whole still giving it very mixed scores.

That's true for immigrants that came to the U.S. for economical reasons, but don't forget the refugees that fled their country because of war or seeking political asylum.

I talk to a lot of them through my job, and almost all of them would prefer to return to their country if it were safe to do so. That is one reason you see so many Chinese going back.

> I talk to a lot of them through my job, and almost all of them would prefer to return to their country if it were safe to do so.

That's a bit like "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"

> And in any case, not being "uniformly positive" doesn't require being uniformly negative. They may consider the U.S., overall, a better place to live, while on the whole still giving it very mixed scores.

I never suggested otherwise. In fact, I actually wrote the equivalent. "Almost all the time, it turns out that whatever it is that they're complaining about is less important to them than something that they get where they currently are. Often they're embarrassed by what that says about their priorities."

> But a decent number of immigrants to the U.S. do leave again later. There's a particularly large number of Chinese immigrants who've returned to China in the past 10 years.

In other words, they see the US as making it possible for them to get ahead enough so that they can live in China the way that they'd like.

I've no doubt that being rich in China is more appealing to many than upper middle class in the US.

Once you've got all your essential needs covered I'll bet relative social status is more important to happiness than material goods. I believe surveys have shown that people would prefer to make $50K in a world where everyone makes $25K than $100K in a world where everyone makes $200K.

In most of the world, "middle class" means that you have a cushy job and don't have to do any housework-- a maid is assumed. It also means that you have enough financial security that, while you may have to work, you can work and move from one industry to another pretty much at your leisure.

Being "middle class" is better in the Third World, but the comparison isn't fair because only 1-5% is called middle class over there, while 50% are considered middle class here. So that's actually a comparison of what we would consider upper-middle class in their societies against the upper working class in ours. No one who has to put off a vacation because he only gets 2 weeks annually would be considered middle class, except in the US, where we indulge in the fictional equation of "median" with "middle class".

What you're talking about (I think) is the fact that a lot of people come to America expecting to be middle class, which implies a certain level of comfort. When they join the upper tier of the working class that is called "middle class" here, they're upset because of their dashed expectations.

Being poor in America sucks but it kicks the pants off being poor in the Third World, at least in material terms. However, the poor in the US are almost always miserable (due to lack of advancement, a culture that equates poverty with failure, and boredom) whereas the poor in the Third World are not always miserable.

> and don't have to do any housework-- a maid is assumed.

Except for the maid of course...

In Panama they say you either have a maid or you are a maid.

None of those afflictions sound like something people can't change or ignore.

  > Even the poorest among us have electricity, running water,
  > tv, computer, internet, etc.

Who could say such a thing when tens of thousands of Americans live in the streets? For many others who do have basic shelter, electricity and running water are not a sure thing, let alone digital entertainment.

Poverty is definitely a part of homelessness, but homelessness is a way bigger problem than poverty alone. It's not just poverty that creates persistent homelessness in America, it's often some combination of poverty, mental illness, addiction, and adaptation to the homeless lifestyle.

There was a story on here awhile ago about the last homeless man in Times Square--the city's social workers keep asking him day after day if he wants a place to sleep--they'll just give him one--and he always says no, he'd rather live on the street. That's an extreme case of adaptation, but other types of adaptation aren't necessarily conducive to living a normal life. One of my friends took in a homeless man for awhile and helped him look for work and the man ended up stealing from him, selling the loot, and living on the streets again. Apparently the guy goes back and forth between jail, the streets, and living with whoever will help him.

The clip is comical in tone so the premises are inexact but it touches on something very important. As we watched the evening news the other day, my flatmate said 'what a terrible world we live in.' Since the news had just reported several abductions and murders, this may seem like a reasonable assertion. But my flatmate's problem is he never appreciates the good of modern society. He simply does not consider all the good things that happened today when he forms the equation. And this goes for a lot of people. All the benefits of technology, etc, are somehow not REAL benefits to us because some corporation is making profit, therefore everyone else must be sustaining some sort of net loss and there's no point feeling good about it.

I'm not suggesting everyone should be permanently ecstatic - everyone's happiness is at root based on achievement of goals they set (or don't set) for themselves, and will fluctuate accordingly, and normalize to the social context. But equally there is no reason to hold a constantly pessimistic and critical world-view.

In Germany there is a saying:

Man erkennt Wohlstand nicht daran, dass die Leute weniger jammern, sondern daran, auf welchem Niveau sie jammern.

(You don't recognize wealth by less complaining people, but by the level on which they are complaining.)

I like that. Here's one I just thought up:

Envy is not poverty.

Would you say that is analogous?

I think there is a connection, but there are important differences.

First, envy is a different issue than complaining. People are complaining every day, which is mostly a good thing, because it encourages improvement and self-critism. Think of inventors or human rights fighters. However, envy is almost always a bad thing that shouldn't happen too often. It causes anti-social behaviour and thus must be fighted against.

Second, poverty is not the opposite of wealth, it's the other extreme. Also, wealth means more than just material wealth, and this extended meaning is essential to the saying I cited above. In contrast, poverty means material poverty, which is kind of misleading in the context above.

"how quickly the world owes him something that didn't exist ten seconds ago"

99% of the internet users today :)

that HE didn't know existed ten seconds ago

Get it right because it emphasises the entitlement douchiness :-)

[Louis C.K. on Conan] Some of the best and truest words about technology, its convenience and just how much more miserable (or unappreciative) we are.

I'm sure most of you have seen this, but it is worth repeating and watching. Love it.

Nuggets: - Rotary Phones (and hating people with 0's in their number) - Life before common credit-card use - Cell phones and impatience - In-flight wifi - Air travel - and funny in-betweens

The fact that you did a tl;dr summary helps to reinforce his point.

What was there to read? I skipped it because I'm trying to avoid YouTube.

I'm fine with this being reposted every month or so. In fact, I wouldn't mind if it were pinned to the top of the page.

Your comment works both with a straight reading and as sarcasm. Both readings strike me as clever, though opposed.

Jesus people, it's a fucking joke, stop taking it so personally.

Belay that. Do take it personally, reflect on it, but then laugh anyways.

This observation is pretty hilarious.

But surely the reason that technology progresses so fast is that there are always people complaining and striving to improve on these trivial inconveniences. I have no doubt that the motivation for the development of these technological wonders was due to some ungrateful jerk who insisted that the amazing could be even better.

I have no doubt that the motivation for the development of these technological wonders was due to some ungrateful jerk who insisted that the amazing could be even better.

Minus the fraction what was developed by those who thought, "Wouldn't it be marvelous if...?"

Also minus the fraction who thought, "I bet I could make tons of money by..."

Actually, I think we could to without the contribution from ungrateful jerks and be just fine!

fair enough, but in these cases we still get a second order benefit from ungrateful jerks. Let's complete the sentence "I bet I could make tons of money by X because people think Y sucks and would hand over cash to avoid X"

of course, hats off to those solving problems for thinking "wouldn't it be marvelous if..?" I hope they don't go out of business

I think we could do without that as well and still be fine. It's just as effective to think about it from the positive standpoint. (Some would argue it's more productive without the hurt feelings and acrimony.)

A different take:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJjUVIIYptE

2010: Wow, in-flight wi-fi! It's even fast enough to use YouTube!

2012: Wow, this in-flight wi-fi is slow. I'm barely going to get all these files into PowerPoint in time for the presentation...

2015: Ladies and Gentlemen, we can't contact ATC, could you please ease up on your torrents.

3015: Windmills do not work that way. Goodnight.

His best analogy was people complaining that there flight from NYC to LA was "delayed an hour" and comparing it to the fact it often took years to cross the country ("people dieing and babies being born in the group you traveled with").

I was hoping he was going to deliver an Oregon Trail, something like:

"New York to California in 5 hours?! That used to take 30 years, you die of dysentery, your oxen would get ill and you'd have to float your wagon across a river. Now, you watch a movie, take a dump and you're home."

Finally. An Oregon Trail reference that remembers that fording the river never, ever worked. Caulk the wagon and float was the way to go.

Man.. can we not just appreciate the fact that we now have WAGONS that move your STUFF without you having to CARRY IT?!

The FaceBook group is called "I tried to ford the river and my fucking oxen died" for a reason.

it worked if you were starting really late in the season and the rivers were very low, but then the heat would get you later.

The awesomeness of air travel has faded into the background and now we see the shittiness of service, the high prices, and the cramped seats.

Airplanes are still amazing technology, but they're wrong for most of their uses. High-speed rail makes more sense for mid-distance travel. At 300 mph, I'd even consider using it for New York to California-- much prettier, and not dependent on a fuel that will be very expensive in 10-20 years.

There seems to be some movement on high speed rail in the states.

It's funny, it's the one country on the planet that would really benefit from doing it and yet they're really late to the party.

I don't know. High speed rail makes a lot of sense for dense countries. For countries with a lot of empty space in between, airplanes start to look relatively better.

(Fast rail may still be the way to go for NY to California, who knows. It is definitely viable inside the sprawls, like the East Coast or the West Coast.)

From a worst-case-scenario perspective rail is great. Imagine: When all that expensive fuel goes away (bc of war, resource depletion, etc) and all we're left with is crappy old coal. If we have rail all over the country, we will still be able to plop some coal steam engine choo-choos on that rail and send food/water into major city centers so people don't starve.

I agree that we do live in an amazing age we live in, even though I wouldn't put too much emphasis on being able to fly (as this has been around for about 60 years now). I think technologically speaking, a major breakthrough was definitely the internet and mobile communication.

However, I would like to say something about the current generation. I believe the reason they are whiners is maybe because many youngsters in the west are facing the perspective of not being better off financially than the generation of their parents, putting lots of pressure upon them.

I think many people (at least here in Europe) are skeptical of technology because they perceive globalization, outsourcing, technological advancement and increasing competition as interlinked factors, which do not necessarily improve their quality of life, but rather present them with additional unknowns.

Again speaking for Europe, technology would be more widely accepted and hopefully appreciated, if there was a way to give the current generation more certainty that there will be enough water to flow all boats.

There's something to be said about how fantastically developed the world is relative to even a decade ago let alone 100 years or more.

That said; progress isn't made by mass contentment. We must always do analysis on the margin. Even if what people complain about is trivial compared to how far we've come, we don't go further without these goals. Large or small.

Funny, I thought that the technologies he (clearly) enjoys (and appreciates) today were built by people who were thinking along the lines of: oh shit, it takes 30 years to walk to California, why couldn't we just fly there?

It's ok to appreciate things, but it's also ok to expect (and ask for) the best possible service instead of settling for less.

Every generation can say something to this measure about the one before it. If we were happy and content, we would have never made it this far. It is our unhappiness that serves as a driving force to make things even better. Depression and assholitry are not setbacks, they are the driving evolutionary force.

You're sitting on a chair in the sky.

THE CHAIR IS NOW DIAMONDS.

When your Superbowl ad turns into an instant meme, surely you have achieved sainthood in the marketing community.

It's very interesting to see how (almost) all these links have less than 15 points when it is the same content....

I guess there is nothing better than an attractive headline

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=494066 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1003875 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=495561 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=474588 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=918637

Two more contrasting views on technological progress:

Brad Paisely - Welcome to the future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Yg9wjctRw

Lindsay Mac - Rain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5KMmVLkzvw

What a great video. Louis CK is one of the funniest comedians out there.

Thanks for reminding me about dialing zeros... Forgot that artifact of pulse dialing.

I assume he is talking about the baby boomer generation? He doesn't specify the age of the people he's complaining about in his stories.

I don't think he was polarizing any particular generation, because every single generation is GUILTY of taking progress for granted.

Much like freedom, progress and technology is taken for granted until it is interrupted or impeded upon.

But I digress...

This is a general problem with infrastructure. Once something cool is built, it becomes an expectation. The same is true of the Internet.

Oh look, another typical aging misanthrope complaining about whatever generation is after him. Improvements in tech has made life easier but that doesn't necessarily mean the world is AMAZING, especially for a lot of young people in this economy.

He was joking. He was making people lsugh. There was no other guy on the plane complaining about the internet going down, it was him.

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1885790,00.html

Thank you for this link. I had never seen it. This is an amazing quote that I wish he had said on Conan:

If you had a jetpack, you'd be like, "I have the shitiest jetpack. I can't believe I got this jetpack. Who's your service provider? Did they make the new one? Hate this thing, it sucks." Then we'd all sit there and talk about that.

From the article:

It's funny how many different ways you can react to that clip. I even read something by a marketing expert who said, "Louis CK is on to something. We have to figure out how we can to get consumers to really appreciate our product; there's no brand value anymore." Does that surprise you? That even the marketing industry's like: "Yes!"

Life imitates Bill Hicks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

(edited to fix formatting)

I think he's making a good point. You can't deny that the technological advances in the last 15 years were bigger than than in the last 200. He's just saying that all of that is easily taken for granted.

I beg to differ. You could argue that the advances in technology since 1995 (while substantial, notably in IT) do not compare with the breakthroughs accomplished since 1810.

Although we do enjoy faster and more mobile access to internet and computing in general, most of the advances over the past 15 years are incremental improvements over technologies that already existed back then.

What breakthroughs comparable to the advent of e.g. the train, the plane or antibiotics occured over the last 15 years?

The introduction of HIV protease inhibitors in 1995-6 was pretty big.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/338/13/853

> Mortality among the patients declined from 29.4 per 100 person-years in 1995 to 8.8 per 100 person-years in the second quarter of 1997.

Yet there are now a lot more incremental advances per year than 200 years ago. Revolutions can only happen only so often. Apart from that, an "average technology" today has on average much more applications than back then, IMHO (convergence, I would call that). And it's adopted faster and is available to more people (=cheaper).

Also, I think that today's breakthroughs have much more prerequisites in humanity's knowledge and capabilities in different fields than 200 years ago.

I'm not quite sure if you're saying that technology has been progressing at a faster rate in the past 15 years than it has in the previous 200 (which I'd agree with) or that we've had greater progress in the past 15 years than we did in the previous 200 combined (which is absurd).

That's a very important distinction to make, which a lot of people elide right over (I'm looking at you, singularitarians). We've been moving really fast recently, but the destination is pretty mediocre in a lot of ways. C.f. Warren Ellis: "Having a nice robot phone is not an acceptable substitute for a future." http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2010/05/start/...

The routine is funny. That said, without constant effort to appreciate it, everything is easily taken for granted. Give Cinderella a year or two after she married the prince, and she's probably a stuck up bitch who yells at the maid.

> You can't deny that the technological advances in the last 15 years were bigger than than in the last 200.

I can and it's nonsense.

Nuclear power? The Electrical Grid? The Industrial revolution? The transportation revolution? Mass airtravel? Genetics? Electronics?

Versus what ? The internet? Cell phones? Sure it's great but it definitely isn't bigger by any yardstick than what preceded it, in fact plenty of those previous inventions were pre-requisites for those to be possible in the first place.

I'd bet you could live just fine in the world of 15 years ago, but I'd challenge you to live in the one from 200 years ago.

The internet and cell phones have been around for more than 15 years. (Even the web has been around longer.)

The record in mathematics is pretty good. E.g. compiling functional programming languages made huge strides in the last two decades. And so did linear and integer optimization.

You do know this is a comedy routine right?

It's got a nice meta-joke in it too. He's adopting the persona of the back-in-my-day nostalgist, to argue that in the past, things were better because people appreciated how much worse things were in the past.

It's actually an interview. And he's acting as a humorist, not a comedian. So I think the criticism is somewhat valid.

When comedians go on late-night shows they work bits of their material into the interview. This is a bit -- he's said elsewhere that the guy in the story is him.

I think you misunderstood, or it was poorly phrased. But I think the point he was trying to make is that, not that everything in the world is amazing, but rather we live in a time where we (generally speaking) take everything for granted and don't take the time (at least occasionally) to appreciate things for what they are.

I think the keyword here is "appreciation". We snap too quickly if things doesn't always work as they were intended to. Neil deGrasse Tyson made an interesting point about how people would have reacted to iphone if you showed it to them 10 years ago[1]. Yet we bitch and moan about flash and multi-task and copy&paste on iPhone (albeit, some are very legitimate criticism to some extend).

[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag3oOzvU68#t=2m18s

Except, appreciate doesn't provide progression. All that progression that we are supposed to appreciate isn't built on appreciation.

200 years ago, crossing the entire country was a bigger undertaking then it was 50 years ago, and 50 years ago it was a bigger undertaking then it is now. If 50 years ago, people merely appreciated, progress wouldn't have happened. Rather, people weren't happy it was fast enough.

As for why we bitch and moan? Because we care. It's not new, people have been complaining for ages. It's just with the internet, it's easier then ever to find people to bitch and moan with, or about, or to.

However, it was funny. =)

I agree with your point. However appreciating something doesn't mean you have to stop doing everything and marvel at its beauty. I believe progression is a result of appreciation (from the person who is involved in creating it), not exclusively from nagging from consumers (a bit of a generalization maybe).

True. I was too black and white. Good points. =)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com