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

Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests?

#61

Post by slake »

hacknat wrote: post #59

I want to echo, in agreement, with the many people here who are saying that there will likely be protests, but not against automation itself. Present evidence suggests that it is true. However I want to push back against the idea that current protests against, for example, lack of manufacturing jobs are totally misdirected or will be in the future (if they are not against automation). While I think blaming NAFTA and…

> What would protesting automation even look like?

How about truckers stoning or blocking an automated truck that wheels into a rest stop to refuel? Maybe rest stop operators refuse service to automated trucks. (Can they do that legally?)

Re: Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests?

#63

Post by marcosdumay »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #29
chinathrow wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> French politicians similarly surrendered to the terrorists. How do you feel calling someone striking a terrorist?

Why are my feelings relevant? If you must know the answer, I feel like a person who's read a dictionary and knows that terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation to achieve their political goals.

Any army that ever participated in a war fit this.

I think there some "terror" missing from this definition. Anyway, it is a word that should just not be used today. There is no context where it clarifies anything anymore. The GP is correct in distrusting people that use it, and I add that some loss of trust should be automatic.

Re: Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests?

#64

Post by chatmasta »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #5

Yes, but if we continue down our current path, they will not be directed at automation itself. Instead, advanced propaganda and bot networks will organize discontent against whichever targets allow the protesters to feel temporarily empowered, but that pose no actual threat to entrenched powers. The Russians are far further down this road than the US. Go read about how Surkov simultaneously creates Neo-Nazi movements…

Open source sockpuppet software seems like an inevitable equalizer in the propaganda field.

Re: Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests?

#65

Post by evgen »

jayjay71 wrote: post #46
evgen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of the 2nd amendment was so the people would be more powerful than the government Sorry to drag this off-tangent, but that statement is not even close to the reality of why the 2nd amendment was proposed or ratified and you should really stop saying it. It makes a nice post-hoc fairy tale for NRA types, but you desperately need to read some history of the colonial period...

Enlighten me.

tl;dr:

* 'Yay! We are free from English tyranny'

* 'Hey, this is kind of a shitty neighborhood and the English might be back, we need an army.'

* 'Nah, armies are the tools of tyrants. We need a citizen militia, that will work.'

* 'Yeah, but they need to practice because we have seen how poorly these guys fight and if it weren't for our French friends and these German mercs we would have been toast'

* 'Okay, then we should practice. Now the general rule is that if you run a regulated (aka 'practiced') militia you also provide the cannons, beer and chips for the post-practice party, and you provide everyone with their gun. In case you haven't noticed we have been kiting bad checks for the past couple of years and our finances are somewhat...illiquid.'

* 'New plan. We tell our guys they need to bring their own gun. A lot have them already, so we make these BYOG militias.'

* 'Cool idea, let's write this down and stuff it in to the new amendments.'

[Yes, I am compressing a bit more than a decade of the post-revolutionary period under the articles of confederation and numerous state-level disagreements. Think of this as a simplified road map. The 2A was more about the poverty of colonial state governments than anything else.]

Re: Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests?

#66

Post by evgen »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #47
evgen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of the 2nd amendment was so the people would be more powerful than the government Sorry to drag this off-tangent, but that statement is not even close to the reality of why the 2nd amendment was proposed or ratified and you should really stop saying it. It makes a nice post-hoc fairy tale for NRA types, but you desperately need to read some history of the colonial period...

Denial isn't the same thing as argument. The text of the 2nd Amendment is pretty starkly clear.

The text of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear. Especially the first thirteen words.

Those words are obvious to anyone who understand the history of the period, what those words meant at the time, and the arguments made in favor of the amendment. But for some strange reason everyone seems to forget they exist or claim that they are some rhetorical flourish that is found nowhere else in the first ten amendments.

So please, show off for us and explain them.

Re: Ask HN: Will automation generate social massive protests?

#67

Post by yummyfajitas »

marcosdumay wrote: post #63
yummyfajitas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are my feelings relevant? If you must know the answer, I feel like a person who's read a dictionary and knows that terrorists are people who use violence and intimidation to achieve their political goals.

Any army that ever participated in a war fit this. I think there some "terror" missing from this definition. Anyway, it is a word that should just not be used today. There is no context where it clarifies anything anymore. The GP is correct in distrusting people that use it, and I add that some loss of trust should be automatic.

Yes, I left out the requirement of being a non-state actor in my comment. I don't think my comment was misleading at all. My use of the word "terrorist" fit both my definition and chinathrow's.

Since you seem to think I'm being misleading, what do you think I'm misleading people about?

Post reply on HN