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

Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#51

Post by nickpsecurity »

draz wrote: post #43
collyw wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all uses of technology ore a positive influence. HFT, NSA's surveillance are two that come to mind straight away.

I don't want this to come across as if I support these particular programs, but I would imagine some tech comes out through veterans and takes on consumer applications. Does the NSA file patents? If not, usage of tech is probably enforced by the honor code

"Does the NSA file patents?"

They do actually. They also get defense contractors like SAIC's holding company to do it for them then sue groups doing things like encrypted messaging. They can also slap secrecy orders on patents & block those from coming to market with that sort of thing going up since Bush-Cheney.

"usage of tech is probably enforced by the honor code"

See Snowden leaks. Defense contracting debacles. PROMIS scandal. So on and so forth.

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#52

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

sgustard wrote: post #50
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #7

So much of this list was about conservation and environmental issues that it was almost frustrating to filter it out. I have nothing against these topics, but when you dominate your list with one theme and don't address that theme in the lede, I reflexively assume the author is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes. There is almost certainly some sampling bias going on, at least.

How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"? The entire premise of the article depends on your definition of the word "good". I agree this article is viewed through a liberal lens. A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins…

> How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"?

If I were to write this article, I'd attempt to hit as many different interests as possible, including things I find silly or inconsequential (i.e. sports teams' accomplishments).

> A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences!

That's an interesting take on conservatism. Most of the self-proclaimed conservatives I know wouldn't agree with that, but maybe they're mislabeling themselves?

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#53

Post by nickpsecurity »

ciconia wrote: post #32
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #7

So much of this list was about conservation and environmental issues that it was almost frustrating to filter it out. I have nothing against these topics, but when you dominate your list with one theme and don't address that theme in the lede, I reflexively assume the author is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes. There is almost certainly some sampling bias going on, at least.

Did you read it from start to end? By order of subjects: nature conservation, global health, political and economic progress, climat change response, less violence, sustainable economy and agriculture, endangered animals, charity. The conservation of our planet is probably the biggest challenge facing humanity, and everything else sort of ties in with it. You cannot really separate economic progress, political stabil…

" and everything else sort of ties in with it. "

No it doesn't. I can talk about problems and solutions on most of the list you cited without ever mentioning conservation. Conservation is a big talking point if the author is heavily biased for or against it with a personal mission to push it into people's minds. As we see in the article.

I'd have probably led with global health or less violence followed by economy, political progress, agriculture, and/or charity. These are what people relate to easiest. Then, I hit them with thing that are more long-term or that they just might not care about. This setup is what I create when the audience of people in general is my priority rather than my personal, political mission.

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#54

Post by avz »

candu wrote: post #29
arcanus wrote: post #19

Missing the biggest triumph of 2016 by far: the victory by DeepMind's machine learning algorith at Go over the greatest living human player. At this time last year it was highly questionable if humans would ever lose to algorithms at games as complex as Go. Now we have reason to be optimistic that an entire class of problems are amenable to solution through computation, and more evidence super-human synthetic intelli…

...and hundreds of millions worldwide who have been saved from malaria or lifted out of extreme poverty would likely disagree with you: what good is super-human synthetic intelligence several decades from now (assuming that's even a tractable generalization of largely task-specific ML models) if you're not sure where your next meal comes from?

> if you're not sure where your next meal comes from?

This is certainly work in progress, but:

"31. In 1990, more than 60% of people in East Asia lived in extreme poverty. As of 2016, that proportion has dropped to 3.5%."

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#55

Post by TheBeardKing »

newswriter99 wrote: post #11

Some of these are objectively good, such as world literacy increasing, less pollution in the atmosphere or survival rates increasing for endangered species. Then it lost me with "Oh and smoking bans are good and global human population increases are good and also drilling=evil corporations so banning it across the board=good" Those are debatable. Not very politically neutral is it.

Smoking bans or taxes are good as long as you have socialized medicine or regulations which prohibit private insurance from charging higher premiums for smokers. You're free to harm yourself as long as health-conscious people don't have to pay for it. The same for soda taxes and the like.

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#56

Post by lithos »

coherentpony wrote: post #39
lithos wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author seemed to be going to great lengths to get things that were very positive, or at least very difficult to argue as a negative.

Depending on one's political leanings, Trump, Brexit and AlphaGo are all positive things.

There's a difference between those, and the eradication of diseases/increased nature preservation/reduced world hunger/increased literacy.

Basically the post is going way out of its way to show a selection of the good stuff (based on what the author usually covers) that is difficult for the Media to get lots of angry shares based on a polarizing title.

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#57

Post by entropyneur »

exedore6 wrote: post #41
entropyneur wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Less smoking is very good for the population health. But what is population health good for if not enjoying life? Including (for some people) things like smoking a cigarette.

Isn't a big part of the enjoyment satiating the addiction? With fewer people smoking (and non-smoke methods of getting a nicotine fix), I still see this as a great thing.

As a former nicotine addict, that's the only part. But what difference does it make? The pleasure is as real as any other.

Of course fewer people smoking is a great thing. It's just not great enough to justify taking away somebody's freedom to choose for themselves.

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#58

Post by entropyneur »

_ph_ wrote: post #46
entropyneur wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Less smoking is very good for the population health. But what is population health good for if not enjoying life? Including (for some people) things like smoking a cigarette.

An interesting question. With many things we have to balance the fun of the moment with the long term consequences, even with plain food. But with smoking, especially cigarettes, this is a quite one-sided balance. Even without the risk of cancer, every single cigarette will do considerable, irrevocable harm to your lungs. And I know few people wo smoke lightly, Nikotin is extremely addictive. Finally, there is the im…

I guess I shortened my point too much to make it sound pretty. The real fun being taken away here is of course not smoking, but making your own choices. I myself kicked a very bad smoking habit for the exact reasons you mention.

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#59

Post by protomyth »

sgustard wrote: post #50
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #7

So much of this list was about conservation and environmental issues that it was almost frustrating to filter it out. I have nothing against these topics, but when you dominate your list with one theme and don't address that theme in the lede, I reflexively assume the author is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes. There is almost certainly some sampling bias going on, at least.

How would you propose making a list of "99 reasons 2016 was a good year" without "sampling bias"? The entire premise of the article depends on your definition of the word "good". I agree this article is viewed through a liberal lens. A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins…

> A conservative's list would be very different: opened up vast new areas to oil drilling! Outlawed abortion in more countries! Rolled back environmental regulations that protect penguins over jobs! Reduced crime with stiffer prison sentences!

and that's why liberals lose elections - one of these years we'll skip the caricatures

Re: Reasons 2016 was a great year for humanity

#60

Post by ak217 »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #7

So much of this list was about conservation and environmental issues that it was almost frustrating to filter it out. I have nothing against these topics, but when you dominate your list with one theme and don't address that theme in the lede, I reflexively assume the author is attempting to pull the wool over my eyes. There is almost certainly some sampling bias going on, at least.

Maybe the sampling bias is in our own little urban bubbles, where we become oblivious to the mass extinction being driven by people around us. The time to prioritize environmental issues is now. Our culture and infrastructure and code can preserve themselves pretty well, but much of the wildlife around us is gone, and most of it will be gone forever if we don't act.
Post reply on HN