getp

I concur. Perhaps it's best to rephrase the point about geek adoption versus mainstream adoption. Geeks live in possible futures. Some of these futures materialize (i.e. go mainstream), others don't.

The Internet fatigue Chris talks about, I see it all around me, and more and more articles are popping up about Internet addictions. Plus I suspect the new Facebook redesign will suck people in even more. So in this case, I think he's definitely got a good point.

Very interesting article, I can see some of our discussions in there. I think it's indeed fair to say most people could use less stuff in their lives (minimalism). Furthermore, it's honorable to strive for a simpler life in this age of the Internet and globalization. However, I also agree with the comments that the audience for this article is probably individualistic, unbound, single young men.

Both minimalism and stoicism are about constraints. Therefore, I do not agree with replacing books with a Kindle. A Kindle - like most Internet-connected mobile devices - represents abundance: an abundance of information. Hence I find this point a bit at odds with an information diet. Having physical books puts a constraint on what you can carry around with you (especially important when traveling). Also, which is an argument not heard enough, reading from books - especially hardcovers - has aesthetic value, and it's easier to remember the contents of the book.

You hear people often about "swimmer's bodies": broad shoulders and narrow waist (V-shape), long legs and arms, not too low body fat percentage, medium amount of mass, toned & elongated muscles.

Also ancient pentathletes (modern day decathletes). Aristotle in Rhetoric: "a body capable of enduring all efforts, either of the racecourse or of bodily strength...This is why the athletes in the pentathlon are most beautiful"

Yeah too bad, it looks perfect..

A thought-provoking article. However, it's not at all clear to me why having a more informational economy is beneficial per se. Because the non-incremental change - or power law change - can work both ways, up and down.

Take the financial system for instance. Finance is one of the most "informationized" industries, with news coming in fast at Bloomberg terminals, ubiquitous access via smart phones, and thousands of trading orders executed every second. Yes, a system becomes more efficient the less (physical) constraints it has, but it also gets less robust. At the core of this problem is that we don't really understand non-incremental change due to the properties of information and a whole host of cognitive biases.

Therefore, I'd like to see a distinction being made to cases where the informationization is beneficial, and where it is detrimental. It's a good thing in industries where there's mostly exposure to positive non-incremental change (e.g. Internet businesses, biotech), but otherwise not.

Mostly the advantages of being in a startup hub, and SV is the primus inter pares.