I think some people are answering the question, “What are NYC diners _like_?” And it’s confusing to non-New Yorkers because those things do occur everywhere: One can find matzo ball soup and rubbery burgers and formica counters in plenty of major cities.
The second question people could answer is, “_Why_ are there ‘NYC diners’?” The answer to _this_ question is the real reason why people are so fond of diners and claim they’re unique to NYC. NYC-style diners thrive in the unique-to-NYC combo of...
- true 24-hour foot traffic from the city’s “never sleeps” thing, cars being impractical, and its massive 24-hour (lol, mostly) metro system
- an economy that supports individual-owned quirky businesses (for now!) with decades of history
- people having to leave their tiny apartments in order not to go mad, so you find more people from all backgrounds using the same few public spaces to relax, and more of these random communities of “regulars” built around nothing other than a shared space
- you can be almost whatever you want here and no one will stop you, so we accumulate more glorious eccentrics than elsewhere, and our diners fill up with legendary, cherished characters
- you’re often anonymous and lonely here so some people get into the habit of quick intimacy with strangers
As the article mentioned, diners are dying out a little in Manhattan. This because it’s getting harder to run a small business here (taxes/expenses/rent), and people might just stay home and watch Netflix to relax rather than go out, among other reasons...
But diner fanatics are usually just NYC lovers. I can’t imagine who would love diners but hate the city.
I’m still concerned, though... addition to basic security, some people will compromise ethics for status. In particular, an observation JL made in the book is that people staying in the finance industry despite reservations were often parents buying their kids a fancy education.
Abolish Harvard to fix Facebook? Less Eton, more ethics?
Swimming with Sharks by Joris Luyendijk (about the finance industry in London) argues that amoral actors develop and thrive in environments where they get a “bonus” for good performance but fear no “malus” if their choices backfire. Organizationally, you see banks with separate, impotent, internal risk and compliance departments, while their “front offices” get literal cash bonuses for successful short term gambles. No rational actor sees any benefit to fighting for change: there’s no lasting result but personal ruin.
Developers have the power to refuse bad actions, especially like you say in a job-rich environment. But unless software developers experience risk consequences for developing something bad, some number of them will not obey their conscience.
As a godforsaken millennial in the big American city, I do see us spending more on experiences, food, memberships, digital content, locations — things that you can’t touch — than objects. This has implications for the overall productivity of society, maybe? We produce less stuff that goes unused in attics and garages. What we do produce, we’re more likely to consume immediately or scale trivially. So less work on stuff no one will ever use. Maybe. Theory.
It’s purely anecdotal, yes. I think research papers and brand acquisition patterns can substantiate the claims we spend more on fancy food.
It could be our tastes which have been informed by analog and minimalist culture movements which I first noticed in the mid-2000s.
It could also be because we don’t have much disposable income and since home ownership is so hard where the jobs are (big cities) those with money still have nowhere to put stuff.
Dead on that data science job descriptions reveal how poorly companies understand what needs doing on their data and how to ask for it.
I don’t agree the answer is to just look for personable, inquisitive people sans PhD and treat them sanely. In the long run few companies are capable of such magnamity and calm. You are typically not doing these nice people any favors, dropping them into a messy pile of data and high expectations.
The solution is defining the task you need done and hiring something more specific than a “data scientist”.
I have seen Facebook “data science” roles that were just entry level SQL Analyst / dashboard “developer” roles. OK, why not just ask for a “business analyst” or “marketing analyst”?
Other “data science” roles are just ETL development jobs; if ETL sounds boring to you, just call this “Software Developer - Data Engineering”.
In the rarest of cases, someone justifies a need for an actual ML developer. Ask for an “ML engineer” and pay the sky-high salary.
Of course, asking for a DBA is so unsexy that nobody dares do it, and all of the above people - SQL analysts, ETL devs, ML devs - are way less productive than they could be.
I recently discovered downloading library books onto phones, have you looked into that?
I live in a city and don’t have enough cash/room for hundreds of books in my apartment and don’t usually have time to reach a library branch. But this way I get/return books instantly and I don’t have to lug anything around on the subway. I read ebooks faster for some reason, too. No way to drop the book in a puddle or pour coffee on it. And finishing a library book on my phone is one of the rare times I feel like I actually used my phone to get something done.
I love tech when it cuts down on the number of objects I need to own or schlep.
That article didn’t have any sources and blamed pathological perfectionism on psychic wounds. Ok, it’s not a bad theory, but remember when we figured out that some peptic ulcers came from H. pylori, not just being uptight?
Behold some really fascinating research on perfectionism, OCD, and Tourette’s:
I know the article was about personality/perfectionism not tics/OCD, but I find this idea that issues around “obsessiveness” could have an immune/histamine/basal ganglia cause so fascinating, since I myself have OCD and would very much enjoy not having it, even if that took the edge off my high-achieving/driven personality. They haven’t teased it all out and there is no medical treatment based on all this yet. But maybe someday?
The second question people could answer is, “_Why_ are there ‘NYC diners’?” The answer to _this_ question is the real reason why people are so fond of diners and claim they’re unique to NYC. NYC-style diners thrive in the unique-to-NYC combo of...
- true 24-hour foot traffic from the city’s “never sleeps” thing, cars being impractical, and its massive 24-hour (lol, mostly) metro system
- an economy that supports individual-owned quirky businesses (for now!) with decades of history
- people having to leave their tiny apartments in order not to go mad, so you find more people from all backgrounds using the same few public spaces to relax, and more of these random communities of “regulars” built around nothing other than a shared space
- you can be almost whatever you want here and no one will stop you, so we accumulate more glorious eccentrics than elsewhere, and our diners fill up with legendary, cherished characters
- you’re often anonymous and lonely here so some people get into the habit of quick intimacy with strangers
As the article mentioned, diners are dying out a little in Manhattan. This because it’s getting harder to run a small business here (taxes/expenses/rent), and people might just stay home and watch Netflix to relax rather than go out, among other reasons...
But diner fanatics are usually just NYC lovers. I can’t imagine who would love diners but hate the city.