Hacking For Good

Cats sleep 16 hours a day so if you get them addicted to social networks you'll be creating a rat population problem.

In all seriousness though the author here just took the time to write what most of us have thought... that technology has been getting us to look down at stupid things on our smartphones too much and not enough up at the sky or around us at each other and our cities.

We don't think enough about the bigger problems, we only come up with new filters/effects for our food pics.

You should think twice before applying to YC with a social network for cats or cars if only because if you do that you're unlikely to get accepted.

I think the problem with the Big Problems (tm) is that solving them is not a One Solution Big Reward job. It is millions of different tedious little problems. Solving a few of them will not give you anything.

Example: Decreasing energy consumption of mobile devices. Is that a Big Problem? I think so. How do you do that? Lots of little tweaks and fixes on various layers (software, hardware, interdependencies, etc). Lots of 0.1% improvements. After a few years you get the new iPhone and it is 10% better with energy. Of course, you only see 5% improvement, because additional features ate up the rest. Note that those little efficiency improvements enabled those additional features. However, nobody really appreciates the junior engineer who was responsible for 11 of those 0.1% improvements. Not even she herself finds that amazing.

Am I too dark?

(disclaimer: I know nothing about actual iPhones)

> Paul Graham recently wrote that the next big place for startups to disrupt is in startup investing.

Startups are experiments in efficiency: Who can solve a problem for a large (or valuable) market the fastest, with the least friction, and the highest margin? As pg's pointed out, it's all about growth, and that comes from applying efficiency to a place nobody's thought to do so yet.

The long-term impact on the world doesn't factor in to it at all, initially.

My reading of that essay was that there's a lot of money to be made, quickly, by solving that particular problem.

Of course, the argument could be made that by addressing inefficiencies in the communications between early-stage founders and investors, you are giving more opportunities to more people to make the sorts of changes you desire - people who would not have otherwise had those opportunities to build things like that.

These ideas aren't necessarily at odds.

I have one issue with this article.

You don't "think about getting prescribed antidepressants". You go to the doctor with a health issue which he treats you for.

Antidepressants aren't pills for when you're a bit cheesed off to pick you up.

As evidenced by your 'hug request' anecdote, it seems your time could be better spent AFK in general and learning how and why people interact with one another. For example, hugging is a spontaneous gesture (aside from greeting/farewell hugs) meant to convey a feeling of connectedness between two people. It sounds like you are actually suffering from feelings of alienation and in your confusion, projecting these feelings onto society and the YC/HN community at large. Furthermore, increase in the use of prescription antidepressants is only a correlation between time and prescription antidepressant use. That is to say, it doesn't prove that people are more depressed nowadays.

Very good article.

But in the end it's just a job. We all have to make money because we don't grow our own food.

I thought about this a long time and I'm just going to use hacking to make money and spend it on a social project that has nothing to do with hacking and can't be fixed with (computer) hacking.

Ahh yes the Real-Problems(TM) paradox and moral high ground.

I take issue with that last paragraph.

You know what? I want a social network for cats. You know why? Because that sounds awesome. Come on guys and gals, whatever happened to being human and having a sense of humor?

Let's solve the hard problems too! We don't ONLY have to do one or the other. Let people work on what they want to.

I think people's motivations are the more concerning thing about these kinds of things. Is the person building a social network for cats because he or she is a huge pet lover and wants to see something like that exist or just because he or she is trying to make a quick buck? If it's the former, then I'm completely fine with it. Let them try, and if it fails it fails.

Okay.. your article is of course a good reflection of our distorted social interaction.. But what are your _concrete_ proposals for solving it apart of negating social networks for cats?

Wonder how this relates to Random Hacks of Kindness? http://www.rhok.org/