151–160 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not be as good as it was 50 years ago, but there's a case to be made that it's nearly as good as it ever was prior to 1900.
It's better in every way. Racism, sexism, apartheid, LGBT, corporal punishment...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are dangerously wrong. Never before has there been a point in time where: -A determined individual with the right equipment could shut down the information network our society almost exclusively relies upon. -Weapons created for war could destroy the conditions for human civilization across the entire planet. -Everyday consumption keeps people complacent while the artificially low costs contribute to and…
i don't understand your point. I'm not discounting any range of horrific tomorrows. I'm just reading The Periodic Table by Primo Levi (an Auschwitz survivor) and the future that worries me is the rise of fascism. But you are still living in a world that is objectively the safest it has ever been for a human being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's ignoring risks. It's like being the richest you've ever been in 2007. True but not reassuring. We have nukes, very worrying demographic trends in the west with massive migrations, and a declining hegemon. We're comfortable but fragile. What I want to say is that Taleb seems to have a better handle on things than Pinker.
What's worrisome about the immigration trends? I personally like them, and feel that they're more stabilizing than not: we're less likely to go to war with a nation of whose ethnicities make up some substantial fraction of our populace, and may be treated better in the case of war (look at German-American vs. Japanese-American treatment in WWII). But these are only my views. You can ask Taleb about his views on Middl…
Places like the US and Denmark are incredibly non-corrupt, while places like Russia, Brazil, and Nigeria are highly corrupt. Why some places are corrupt and others aren't is poorly understood magic of some sort. One fairly decent guess is something like "cultural factors" - Danish bureaucrats aren't corrupt because they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it.
If there's a clear plan and proven successes on acculturating immigrants, I'm much less worried about opening up borders. Without that, though, we may be risking a highly nebulous yet incredibly important shared resource - the cultural norms that make our communities excellent places to live.
It's odd, the world is the safest and most stable that it has ever been. There has never been a better time to be a human being, and yet, the media and certain politicians would have you believe that there is disaster after disaster, terrorist plots afoot around every corner, feeding your fear day after day. If ever there was an example of the devil at work, then that's it(and I'm not even religious). Uncertainty abo…
I have asked almost everyone I know if they have a subscription to: nytimes.com wsj.com forbes.com Guess what? I don't even have any minor acquaintances with subscriptions to these sites. So how come every single aggregator that I visit has articles from these sites commonly among the top and featured positions?
Please stop reposting this. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's worrisome about the immigration trends? I personally like them, and feel that they're more stabilizing than not: we're less likely to go to war with a nation of whose ethnicities make up some substantial fraction of our populace, and may be treated better in the case of war (look at German-American vs. Japanese-American treatment in WWII). But these are only my views. You can ask Taleb about his views on Middl…
>What's worrisome about the immigration trends? Places like the US and Denmark are incredibly non-corrupt, while places like Russia, Brazil, and Nigeria are highly corrupt. Why some places are corrupt and others aren't is poorly understood magic of some sort. One fairly decent guess is something like "cultural factors" - Danish bureaucrats aren't corrupt because they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps because the "want of something more" is becoming less and less effective a political motivator, compared to the expedience of action tied to the "fear of something worse"? (I recognize we have an incredible capacity to crave more, but maybe there are diminishing returns of a sort in our psychology.)
As they say in finance, the only emotion more powerful than greed is fear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What's worrisome about the immigration trends? Places like the US and Denmark are incredibly non-corrupt, while places like Russia, Brazil, and Nigeria are highly corrupt. Why some places are corrupt and others aren't is poorly understood magic of some sort. One fairly decent guess is something like "cultural factors" - Danish bureaucrats aren't corrupt because they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish t…
I would consider the US a proven success on acculturating immigrants. Over 200 years of importing people from broken corrupt and broken regimes, creating a prosperous and relatively uncorrupt society.
It's odd, the world is the safest and most stable that it has ever been. There has never been a better time to be a human being, and yet, the media and certain politicians would have you believe that there is disaster after disaster, terrorist plots afoot around every corner, feeding your fear day after day. If ever there was an example of the devil at work, then that's it(and I'm not even religious). Uncertainty abo…
That's ignoring risks. It's like being the richest you've ever been in 2007. True but not reassuring. We have nukes, very worrying demographic trends in the west with massive migrations, and a declining hegemon. We're comfortable but fragile. What I want to say is that Taleb seems to have a better handle on things than Pinker.
There is a lot of discussion on HN (in this thread and in many others) about what we will do when technology replaces a significant fraction of our jobs. People are talking about a 10%, 50%, or even 99% reduction in the workforce size due to technological advances (mostly AI). I totally reject the conclusion that the workforce will be significantly reduced by any imminent technology. Look at humans throughout history…
If you think most people pay for 100s of apps, you're probably wrong. Get out of the tech bubble, go spend some time with blue collar workers, they probably don't care about that smartphone all that much. The advertisers might've convinced them to buy one, and they might be browsing facebook or news with it, and that's likely the extent of what they know to do with it. And even when they buy apps, or subscribe to netflix, that money is absolutely nothing compared to rent and food and all that. I have a hunch that the thing in their pocket isn't making their life that much better. Look, it's just something people have. And they kinda have to have one. You really might have to get out of the tech bubble to see it.
I think too many people here equate having a job with having a meaningful life or "feeling needed". I truly think we could come up with an infinite amount of bullshit jobs for the entire population, jobs that don't serve any of our basic needs. Jobs you could get kicked out of any time. These jobs are not a gateway to meaningful life, they are a chore people go through so they can afford to pay the bills. These people aren't needed, if they quit, there's always someone else who needs to pay the bills too. If anything, that creates anxiety and makes you feel unneeded.
And if you're unemployed, it's very stigmatising. The society wants to tell that you're a freeloader, a burden, a problem that needs to solve itself. You're unneeded unless you're making money and paying taxes. Up until you're employed, you need to justify your existence to the society at large. You might get enough money to survive, not enough to lead a meaningful life. You can't afford to try and start meaningful endeavors yourself, unless you're a very convincing and charismatic person or willing to take a big risk (or both). Your only hope is getting a job, quite possibly some bullshit job that doesn't really need to be done, and in particular doesn't need to be done by you. If anything, you're the one who has to convince somebody that you're the one who should get to do that job in place of another person. You have to explain the employer why you should be needed (even though they're the ones hiring..).
Telling such a person that he should be happy because he can have mobile apps or netflix or infinite entertainment on youtube is very inconsiderate.
Where are all the four hours or three days a week job opportunities that give people the chance to enjoy more leisure?
I've only read about the experiments, say in Sweden, where some people's day was reduced to six hours, and I remember the workers feeling uncomfortable because other people got envious about it.