I've had this discussion with several people before. The result of every discussion is that there are different ways to use the same service. Neither are inherently bad, but some can be worse than others. More on that as I share with you how I use Facebook, and why.
1. Profile
I fill out my profile with relevant information. Facebook's publishing settings are actually not terrible. Now, you can choose each part of your profile to be visible to various levels of friends, to lists, to the public, or to nobody at all. For example, if you're single, but you are building an interest in someone and wish to not display your relationship status, you can make just that part of your profile invisible. Alternatively, if you are in a relationship and want the world to know, you can make it public.
I'm of the opinion that if you add someone to your friends list, you genuinely care about them enough to let them know details about your life. So, if I add someone to my friends list, I'm alright with them knowing everything that's in my profile. Also, people only know as much as you tell them. If you don't fill out your work history, then they won't know where you worked before. Really, you're in control of your information.
Fields like Religion, Political Affiliation, Education and favorite sports, music and movies are all voluntary. I think that sometimes it may be a good idea to leave those blank. After all, when you meet someone new, it gives you something to talk about. This can be a double-edged sword though. More on that below, in the Friends section.
2. Friends
At the time of this writing, I have 78 friends. I've been a member since before Facebook went public in September of 2006. If you recall, Facebook was open to various universities first, before it went public. I've never had more than 100 friends... I don't even think I've had more than 80. I had a MySpace account before Facebook and most of my friends from MySpace moved over, so I added them. However, over time, I stopped talking to some of those friends and we drifted apart. I removed them from Facebook.
I remove people from my Friends list when I don't talk to them, or when they don't talk to me. If we have nothing in common, when we don't talk, then we're not friends. When you have 500 friends but realistically chat with only 10 of them and see 5 or 6 of those 10 in real life several times a month, what does that say about you? Why do you have 500 "friends"? Do you know that's a security risk?
How is it a security risk, you ask. If you fill out your profile with information you only want to share with your friends, and then one of those 500 friends gets hacked (and people do get hacked, all the time), they have access to your information. Then, your pictures appear in local ads in Ching Chang province in China, or on anti-American posters in Pyongyang, NK. Or your data is sold to telemarketers. If you have your cellphone posted in your profile and have your various emails visible to your friends, you are risking all that to telemarketers. But... hiding it from everyone? What's the point of putting it there then? What about your network e-mails? You can't remove those or you lose network affiliation.
Facebook profiles get compromised all the time. Unless you have all your 500 friends separated into lists and each list has its specific permissions set for various areas of your profile, you are at risk of being exposed. Sorry, that's just how it is.
Besides, what's the point in having so many friends? I never understood it. You meet someone at a bar, and immediately share your FB information. Say you're a guy and you met a girl, and now instead of exchanging numbers, you both whip out your smartphones and add each other to Facebook in hopes of getting laid. Is that it? Have we fallen this far?
3. Status Updates
Harsh language warning. Honestly, I know you love music, but fucking stop with the youtube links. Sometimes people will sign on Facebook and post every single youtube song they listen to over the past hour on their profile. Then, my Newsfeed is flooded with their music. The worst is when it's several people doing it at once, because they just happen to be in the mood to spam Facebook with Offspring or Pink Floyd. Seriously, I love both Offspring and Pink Floyd, but please, if I wanted to know what kind of music you listen to, I'd look at your profile. Or even better, get Spotify. Stop fucking spamming my Newsfeed with youtube. The worst part of this is that I don't want to block you, because you're my friend (because I friended you) and I care about what you have to say. If you spam my feed with youtube links though, I will block you entirely.
I care about how you feel, but please expand a little bit more on the circumstances of your mood instead of just posting "today sucks". Try this: Today sucks, because I woke up with a hang over and drove my car into the ditch outside of the adult store I was heading to to purchase a whip for tonight's festivities. This tells us a lot more about your circumstances and I'm sure some of us can identify with some or all aspects of your situation. That said, I'm guilty of being vague sometimes too. I'm working on it.
4. Photos
Your baby/cat/puppy/hamster is cute. I actually do care to see them, but not every single fucking day. Really. Stop that.
Instead, post pictures from trips (and label them). Post pictures from events. Post pictures of you... and your significant other. Or just pictures of you. Post pictures of interesting things you see around the city. Post videos that you record of cool stuff! Seriously, people don't post enough videos (not youtube, jerks).
Don't re-post shit from other sites on Facebook. If you really have to share something, post a link to it. That's what internet is all about. Perhaps if you post a link to a Reddit article, someone will go there, read it, and then peruse the site and discover a wealth of information they have never even imagined existed.
5. Conclusion
Don't be an attention whore. Share responsibly. Be aware of privacy issues. Don't spam my Newsfeed. Thank you.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Livability Ratings Are Rubbish!
For this blog post, I consulted three people in three different countries about their standard of living; expenses, income and overall livability in their cities. The cities which I'm going to compare are Seattle, Vancouver and Warsaw.
You can pour over livability studies all you want, but the reality of the situation is that every person is in a different life situation and opinions are often skewed depending on what part of the city people may live in. The Economist's 2011 Livability rankings puts Vancouver, BC on top of the pile of cities all over the world. No single US city even made the top 25. The Economist says "Vancouver (Canada) sits at the top of the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Ranking, a position that can only have been cemented by the successful hosting of the 2010 winter Olympics and Paralympics, which provided a boost to the infrastructure, and culture and environment categories." This is pretty funny to me, because I only know one person who was truly proud of the Olympics hosted there in 2010 and not a single person who thought the cost was worth it.
The Economist's Livability Rating is based on 30 unique factors divided into a few categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. Vancouver scored better than every other city on the list. How? Granted, this rating was calculated before the riots earlier this year and the impending teacher strikes, so stability might have escaped relatively unscathed. I'm not sure how healthcare in Vancouver compares to healthcare in Seattle for instance (but I hope to find out soon through conversation with a health professional there). I've never had any healthcare issues here in America, even though people bitch about this system non-stop. This is probably, because I'm young still! Vancouver's culture is definitely varied, but I don't know if that's good or bad. I can see both sides of the coin. Environment? Well, there's pollution everywhere. Vancouver is a fairly heavy industrial port city. Education, sure, Vancouver's got that covered for the most part. As far as infrastructure, though, I think that's Vancouver's bigger flaw. There is only one freeway which is constantly under construction. Traffic can be pretty atrocious during rush hour and the Skytrain doesn't transfer enough volume to be considered efficient. Biking? Forget about it, unless you have a death wish.
Additionally, when the Economist looked at Vancouver, they must have looked at Vancouver proper and not the surrounding suburbs. Sure, maybe if you can afford living downtown Vancouver, it's a pretty awesome experience - especially if you work there. But what if you live in Surrey, Delta or Richmond? Not exactly the epitome of fine living, is it? If the rating were to include the city and its suburbs, would Vancouver still fare as well as it does on the charts?
Let's leave Vancouver alone, and examine its Northwest cousin, Seattle. Here, I believe the story is reversed. Seattle proper is a dump, no argument. Sure, it's nice to visit every now and then - maybe hit a pub or enjoy the nightlife, but to live there? Hell no. Seattle is dirty, dangerous, roads suck and transportation is awful. However... once you exit Seattle and make your way across Lake Washington either by I-90 or I-520, you will find rich neighborhoods left and right with clean, maintained streets, parks, manicured lawns and modern buildings. Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Sammamish and Woodinville are a complete inverse of Seattle (which is also reflected by price of property). A lot of the "niceness" on this side of the lake is thanks to giant contributions from Microsoft and Boeing. Redmond is basically owned by Microsoft.
So we have Vancouver, where Vancouver proper (and North) is great to live in, but the suburbs not so much. Then, we have Seattle proper which is terrible, and the Eastside which is terrific. Now, let's take a look at Warsaw.
Warsaw is a bustling city with mostly post-war and few modern buildings. There are no "suburbs" like we have in America and Canada. You either live in Warsaw, or you live in the boonies outside of Warsaw and it takes you an hour to get downtown, because the traffic is always awful. Granted, Warsaw's public transportation is amazing compared to both Vancouver and Seattle. However, apartments in Warsaw are for the most part tiny, parking spots are basically nonexistent and roads are absolutely terrible. There are no freeways, but there are several highway stretches downtown without lights. Real quick on the size of apartments... an average apartment in Warsaw is somewhere between 36-42 meters squared for a studio (that is a living room, kitchen and bathroom). 36 meters squared is 324 square feet, roughly. That's less than half of what I live in, and even twice 324 sq ft would be too little to fit all my stuff. Can you imagine living in 324 square feet? With your significant other? I can't (although I've seen it and it can work). We are so spoiled in North America, it's ridiculous. Oh, I should just throw this out there too while I'm at it; in Kentucky you can get a 3 bedroom apartment, 1300sq ft, for approximately what I pay for my 769sq ft apartment here. And that's still America!
But if you don't need to go downtown Warsaw and can, say, work from home... you can live in one of the rich neighborhoods outside the city where houses are so big (and much sturdier) that they make American architecture look like child's play. Standard of living there goes up dramatically. Once you no longer have to deal with Warsaw proper and can afford to live outside the city, you are living like a boss.
The moral of the story is: ratings don't mean shit. Vancouver may be #1, but if you live in Whalley, you're definitely not part of said rating. Seattle may not even be on the list, but I bet Redmond and Kirkland (and maybe Bellevue) would definitely find a spot near the top. I don't even know if Warsaw was on the plus list (doubt it), but again, suburbs have you living like a king if you can afford it.
I will always be looking to live in the best place possible. For me, that's where jobs are. I am fortunate enough to work at a company which is also located in one of the richest cities in the state (maybe even country? $66,300 median income in this county). Not sure where I could go to up my standard of living. Where do you want to go?
You can pour over livability studies all you want, but the reality of the situation is that every person is in a different life situation and opinions are often skewed depending on what part of the city people may live in. The Economist's 2011 Livability rankings puts Vancouver, BC on top of the pile of cities all over the world. No single US city even made the top 25. The Economist says "Vancouver (Canada) sits at the top of the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Ranking, a position that can only have been cemented by the successful hosting of the 2010 winter Olympics and Paralympics, which provided a boost to the infrastructure, and culture and environment categories." This is pretty funny to me, because I only know one person who was truly proud of the Olympics hosted there in 2010 and not a single person who thought the cost was worth it.
The Economist's Livability Rating is based on 30 unique factors divided into a few categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. Vancouver scored better than every other city on the list. How? Granted, this rating was calculated before the riots earlier this year and the impending teacher strikes, so stability might have escaped relatively unscathed. I'm not sure how healthcare in Vancouver compares to healthcare in Seattle for instance (but I hope to find out soon through conversation with a health professional there). I've never had any healthcare issues here in America, even though people bitch about this system non-stop. This is probably, because I'm young still! Vancouver's culture is definitely varied, but I don't know if that's good or bad. I can see both sides of the coin. Environment? Well, there's pollution everywhere. Vancouver is a fairly heavy industrial port city. Education, sure, Vancouver's got that covered for the most part. As far as infrastructure, though, I think that's Vancouver's bigger flaw. There is only one freeway which is constantly under construction. Traffic can be pretty atrocious during rush hour and the Skytrain doesn't transfer enough volume to be considered efficient. Biking? Forget about it, unless you have a death wish.
Additionally, when the Economist looked at Vancouver, they must have looked at Vancouver proper and not the surrounding suburbs. Sure, maybe if you can afford living downtown Vancouver, it's a pretty awesome experience - especially if you work there. But what if you live in Surrey, Delta or Richmond? Not exactly the epitome of fine living, is it? If the rating were to include the city and its suburbs, would Vancouver still fare as well as it does on the charts?
Let's leave Vancouver alone, and examine its Northwest cousin, Seattle. Here, I believe the story is reversed. Seattle proper is a dump, no argument. Sure, it's nice to visit every now and then - maybe hit a pub or enjoy the nightlife, but to live there? Hell no. Seattle is dirty, dangerous, roads suck and transportation is awful. However... once you exit Seattle and make your way across Lake Washington either by I-90 or I-520, you will find rich neighborhoods left and right with clean, maintained streets, parks, manicured lawns and modern buildings. Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Sammamish and Woodinville are a complete inverse of Seattle (which is also reflected by price of property). A lot of the "niceness" on this side of the lake is thanks to giant contributions from Microsoft and Boeing. Redmond is basically owned by Microsoft.
So we have Vancouver, where Vancouver proper (and North) is great to live in, but the suburbs not so much. Then, we have Seattle proper which is terrible, and the Eastside which is terrific. Now, let's take a look at Warsaw.
Warsaw is a bustling city with mostly post-war and few modern buildings. There are no "suburbs" like we have in America and Canada. You either live in Warsaw, or you live in the boonies outside of Warsaw and it takes you an hour to get downtown, because the traffic is always awful. Granted, Warsaw's public transportation is amazing compared to both Vancouver and Seattle. However, apartments in Warsaw are for the most part tiny, parking spots are basically nonexistent and roads are absolutely terrible. There are no freeways, but there are several highway stretches downtown without lights. Real quick on the size of apartments... an average apartment in Warsaw is somewhere between 36-42 meters squared for a studio (that is a living room, kitchen and bathroom). 36 meters squared is 324 square feet, roughly. That's less than half of what I live in, and even twice 324 sq ft would be too little to fit all my stuff. Can you imagine living in 324 square feet? With your significant other? I can't (although I've seen it and it can work). We are so spoiled in North America, it's ridiculous. Oh, I should just throw this out there too while I'm at it; in Kentucky you can get a 3 bedroom apartment, 1300sq ft, for approximately what I pay for my 769sq ft apartment here. And that's still America!
But if you don't need to go downtown Warsaw and can, say, work from home... you can live in one of the rich neighborhoods outside the city where houses are so big (and much sturdier) that they make American architecture look like child's play. Standard of living there goes up dramatically. Once you no longer have to deal with Warsaw proper and can afford to live outside the city, you are living like a boss.
The moral of the story is: ratings don't mean shit. Vancouver may be #1, but if you live in Whalley, you're definitely not part of said rating. Seattle may not even be on the list, but I bet Redmond and Kirkland (and maybe Bellevue) would definitely find a spot near the top. I don't even know if Warsaw was on the plus list (doubt it), but again, suburbs have you living like a king if you can afford it.
I will always be looking to live in the best place possible. For me, that's where jobs are. I am fortunate enough to work at a company which is also located in one of the richest cities in the state (maybe even country? $66,300 median income in this county). Not sure where I could go to up my standard of living. Where do you want to go?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)