Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 311 posts

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#161

Post by pschuegr »

Rodeoclash wrote: post #160
version_five wrote: post #157

The rise of authoritarianism. We need computing, banking, communication and other solutions that are more robust to governments and people generally that want to control what people can do. Decentralized (I don't mean anything to do with crypto nonsense) and simplified methods are needed, e.g currently any nontrivial computer and internet use require relying on a bunch of parties that could quickly turn hostile.

You can't "software" your way out of authoritarianism.

You can't software yourself out of most meaningful problems.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#162

Post by palata »

okeuro49 wrote: post #115
cyber_kinetist wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism (at least in an ideal Marxist form) has no relation to equity, it’s more of a liberal concept than anything else. People use the term Communism (both upper-case and lower-case) in various ways nowadays, but Marx’s original ideal form of society was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" The ultimate goal is to create an affluent productive society that can provide all amenities…

> In this sense communism has never been tried anywhere yet From my knowledge of European history, this is not true. Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production. The difficulty is, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, to steal a phrase. The worker's union movement working inside a capitalist system has brought more benefits for workers, than c…

> From my knowledge of European history, this is not true.

You will need to elaborate on that.

> Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production.

Which should be temporary, right? Do you have an example where it was actually temporary? That would answer my point above.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#163

Post by M95D »

Kon5ole wrote: post #149
eimrine wrote: post #12

A lot of a billionaires which: 1. Exist 2. Actively making us not noticing their existance by shitting us with some fake problems like gays, drugs, foreigners, terrorists, etc (different set of fake problems per country).

In the western democratic world billionaires are an inevitable side-effect of having a high standard of living for the general population. If you create a company that employs a million people and manages to remain profitable you'll be a billionaire even if you don't want to. The only way for you to not be a billionaire is to give up control of your company to someone else who will then be the billionaire. We have ye…

No. Billionaires are a result of avoidable taxation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance

Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality . There are lots of countries there with a very high standard of living AND a low economic inequality, mostly in Europe.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#164

Post by palata »

megalord wrote: post #116
alexvoda wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While communism does have it's flaws, i would argue it has in fact never been tried.

Communism has never been tried? Could you explain a little bit more? I don't know if you are joking or lacking knowledge. Or maybe I lack some knowledge you know about

No system has managed to reach the point where it could be called "pure communism", because it was "interrupted" in the middle (e.g. by becoming authoritarian).

Saying "communism fundamentally cannot work because I know examples that did not work" is similar to saying "democracy fundamentally cannot work, look: Hitler was democratically elected".

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#165

Post by palata »

sdwr wrote: post #142
jacknews wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never going to be useful. D-T fusion is not as clean as is touted, and the economics just aren't ever going to make it viable compared to ever-cheaper solar, wind, batteries/energy storage, etc. Better fission designs OTOH are worth pursuing, and also deep geothermal, and maybe one or two of the CCS options though they seem a bit greenwashy.

15 years ago, solar and wind looked stupid expensive compared to fossil fuels.

Don't forget that solar and wind today are still heavily relying on fossil fuels. So they get better in a world where we have abundant fossil fuels. And still their contribution today to our energy needs is marginal.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#166

Post by palata »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #55
mynonameaccount wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We need cheaper and more available power." Based on your requirements, this is already solved. Pull more oil out of the ground. Burn more trees. AND, throwing money at a problem will definitely solve fusion. Give people cheap energy and people will use it up. Just look at cryptomining. Then you are back to needing more energy. People will do just fine with expensive energy. They will adapt.

Every existential problem is downstream from having dramatically more energy--carbon capture, desalination, food beyond remaining arable land and healthy soil.

Or the opposite: having dramatically less energy. Our ancestors were not destroying biodiversity, and were running on renewables :-). Our modern problems came with fossil fuels...

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#167

Post by palata »

mikewarot wrote: post #81

Unpopular opinion: One of the biggest challenges facing humanity in the next 2 decades is avoiding a catastrophic "Great Simplification" as we run out of oil. If this were allowed to happen, we'd suddenly be unable to practice industrial scale agriculture, and I'd estimate 90% of humanity would starve to death. The US produces large amounts of oil via fracking, which requires more resources to drill and produce than…

YES! Peak of conventional oil was in 2008, Europe feels it economically. Global peak oil is around now. We are facing a big energy problem, and we don't have any viable alternatives (renewables are just not up to the task, even nuclear is not).

> We need to transition away from fossil fuels to avoid this fate.

Yes, IMHO that involves degrowth: do less with less. Doesn't mean living like in the Middle Age, but make technology that helps degrowth. That's a big technical challenge that is not in fashion (because we love to jump on ChatGPT APIs and feel like we are productive making prototypes using it).

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#168

Post by erik_seaberg »

palata wrote: post #166
erik_seaberg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every existential problem is downstream from having dramatically more energy--carbon capture, desalination, food beyond remaining arable land and healthy soil.

Or the opposite: having dramatically less energy. Our ancestors were not destroying biodiversity, and were running on renewables :-). Our modern problems came with fossil fuels...

They also killed each other for land. Sometimes they starved.

As for us, we’ve already emitted too much. If we merely stop it’s still going to be a bad century.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#169

Post by palata »

john_max_1 wrote: post #29

The world population is collapsing at a rapid pace. Our economic growth is based on a growing productive population. Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. Different parts of the world are dealing with population collapse. Look at Japan, a xenophobic country facing population collapse. The total GDP has remain stagnant over the past 20 years. Look at UAE, a country facing population coll…

> Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population.

Yet a growing productive population, in modern societies, relies on cheap (usually fossil) energy, which brings two problems: 1- fossil energy is not unlimited, and we're soon at peak production. 2- fossil energy brings climate change, which is very very bad for our survival at large.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#170

Post by palata »

batshibstein wrote: post #107
camdenlock wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So having >= 1,000,000,000 USD is somehow bad? How about 999,999,999? Still bad? How about 900,000,000? No? Hm. How much is too much, and why?

You play your cards right, you could be in the three-comma club, too. But probably not. But you could be. Probably not.

That's the thing I don't get: the vast majority of people are not rich, and will never be. Why do they fight so bad to help the rich people pay less taxes?
Post reply on HN