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

All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 206 posts

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#71

Post by opportune »

ekianjo wrote: post #57
zanny wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its so much a shame that Linus isn't a billionaire than it is we have billionaires at all. There is limited rational or ethical reason for one human being to accumulate so much centralized wealth. There is being rewarded for hard work / skill / innovation and there is exploiting people to become rich, and the line between those is very hard to distinguish when talking about individuals making more than…

> it is we have billionaires at all. This line of thinking always makes me laugh. You don't complain when a doctors makes money by serving hundreds of patients every month right? Then, when someone builds a product/service that is used by hundreds of millions, or billions of people, the natural conclusion is that they will become millionaires and billionaires. It's very natural, and very logical. > we are talking abo…

There's no problem with someone having a billion dollars, the problem comes from those billion dollars being diverted into rent producing assets

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#72

Post by derefr »

andr3w321 wrote: post #66
derefr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investor accreditation makes sense (for now.) Giving poor people free access to untested-investment-vehicle-X is basically the same as giving them over-the-counter access to scheduled drugs. Mistakes will be made, and the people making them—lacking resources as they do—won't be able to recover from them. Right now, we're spending a lot of money trying to figure out how to get people out of these ruts. (Free housing s…

"Investor accreditation makes sense (for now.)" No it doesn't. It's pure nanny statism. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't invest in or spend their money on. Yes startups are risky. So are lots of things. Why should the wealthy have no restrictions on them, but the poor do? This is literally "class warfare".

The government isn't telling people what they can invest in; it's telling companies whether they can take people's money. It's not illegal to hand money to a private company (you will not be charged with a crime); it's illegal to, as the company, accept that money.

Private companies are a very specific kind of company—they're supposed to be a temporary condition, a way for companies to not have to go through the effort of going through disclosure, underwriting, etc. right away, because they're still just two guys in a garage and don't have the resources to do so. Private companies, as a special case, don't get to participate in all the things public (i.e. "normal") companies do. Private companies are to public companies as minors are to adults.

In your phrasing, you could say that government also "tells people what they can and can't" eat, in the form of the FDA. But, just like this case, it should be clear that the FDA never goes after someone for eating a poisoned cucumber; it just goes after the company for selling poisoned cucumbers.

(The DEA, on the other hand, is pure nanny-state-ism.)

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#73

Post by [deleted] »

opportune wrote: post #71
ekianjo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is we have billionaires at all. This line of thinking always makes me laugh. You don't complain when a doctors makes money by serving hundreds of patients every month right? Then, when someone builds a product/service that is used by hundreds of millions, or billions of people, the natural conclusion is that they will become millionaires and billionaires. It's very natural, and very logical. > we are talking abo…

There's no problem with someone having a billion dollars, the problem comes from those billion dollars being diverted into rent producing assets

[deleted]

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#74

Post by [deleted] »

gowld wrote: post #51
whataretensors wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blame the SEC for this one. Their accredited investor regulation gave the future to the rich. Seed round, series A, B, C, etc should be a vehicle for class mobility. Instead it's a way for the rich and powerful to accumulate more wealth. With YC and other incubators acting as a filter for where investors should put money, it matters more which zipcode you were born into than your overall intelligence and creativity.…

If you believe that, create a VC fund, make public offerings, and let the general public buy shares in your fund via their brokerage account.

[deleted]

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#75

Post by kazinator »

opportune wrote: post #71
ekianjo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is we have billionaires at all. This line of thinking always makes me laugh. You don't complain when a doctors makes money by serving hundreds of patients every month right? Then, when someone builds a product/service that is used by hundreds of millions, or billions of people, the natural conclusion is that they will become millionaires and billionaires. It's very natural, and very logical. > we are talking abo…

There's no problem with someone having a billion dollars, the problem comes from those billion dollars being diverted into rent producing assets

Rented assets allow people to take advantage of resources without the hassle and expense of owning them.

If there is a demand for the use of certain assets without the hassle of owning them, why shouldn't some billionaire invest into that to meet the need.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#76

Post by derefr »

kakarot wrote: post #70
derefr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investor accreditation makes sense (for now.) Giving poor people free access to untested-investment-vehicle-X is basically the same as giving them over-the-counter access to scheduled drugs. Mistakes will be made, and the people making them—lacking resources as they do—won't be able to recover from them. Right now, we're spending a lot of money trying to figure out how to get people out of these ruts. (Free housing s…

> basically the same as giving them over-the-counter access to scheduled drugs. Something that also should be legal (with reasonable discrimination). I would choose a different metaphor because this one doesn't work in your favor.

I believe in safe injection sites; in having way more doctors; in having more state-sponsored free clinics; in encouraging said free clinics to be willing to prescribe narcotics in cases where the patient is unable to function without them; in support programs for getting over addiction using drugs like naltrexone; etc. I also, I should especially highlight, don't believe in prosecuting people for drug possession, of any kind or amount.

But I don't believe that we would benefit, on net, if you could buy heroin in the corner convenience store without a doctor's encouragement to do so. The number of people who would be able to safely manage their own treatment, would be outweighed by the number of people who would become newly addicted due to increased access and the aura of illegitimacy being removed.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#77

Post by jumpman500 »

ekianjo wrote: post #57
zanny wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its so much a shame that Linus isn't a billionaire than it is we have billionaires at all. There is limited rational or ethical reason for one human being to accumulate so much centralized wealth. There is being rewarded for hard work / skill / innovation and there is exploiting people to become rich, and the line between those is very hard to distinguish when talking about individuals making more than…

> it is we have billionaires at all. This line of thinking always makes me laugh. You don't complain when a doctors makes money by serving hundreds of patients every month right? Then, when someone builds a product/service that is used by hundreds of millions, or billions of people, the natural conclusion is that they will become millionaires and billionaires. It's very natural, and very logical. > we are talking abo…

> It's very natural, and very logical.

Being natural and logical doesn't make it moral or ethical. I think you're only kidding yourself if you believe that people deserve that much money and power.

> How about folks who centralize powers like politicians in high level functions, who have not even been elected but appointed? How do you feel about that? They also can have massive influence on the world's affairs, even if they are not billionaires. I'd be way more concerned about that.

Nice use of whataboutism. We can protest, resit, or vote for politicians and bureaucrats. A billionaire will be a billionaire unless the economy collapses or they decide to become a philanthropist.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#78

Post by 0xbear »

kaybe wrote: post #52
0xbear wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reminds me of an old (and highly illegal at the time) Soviet joke: it’s 1917, the Russian revolution is getting into its full swing. An old man is lying on a couch reading a newspaper. His grandson runs into a room, and excitedly proclaims: “Grandfather, Bolsheviks have seized the means of production, and there will be no rich people anymore”. To which the old man replies: “Funny, the revolutionaries of my gener…

Similar to what a Chinese teacher abroad told me: We tried even distribution and found that everyone being poor sucks, so now we let some people get rich first then actually have something to even out. Very optimistic but seems to be the official reading of the plan.

Those folks have been through the communist grinder too. It’s only the doe-eyed idealists here in the US who think they’ll do it right this time, just like their Russian counterparts 100 years ago. 100M deaths later we’re back to square one.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#79

Post by zanny »

cgag wrote: post #58
zanny wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its so much a shame that Linus isn't a billionaire than it is we have billionaires at all. There is limited rational or ethical reason for one human being to accumulate so much centralized wealth. There is being rewarded for hard work / skill / innovation and there is exploiting people to become rich, and the line between those is very hard to distinguish when talking about individuals making more than…

Aren't there a ton of those multinational corporations making products and software? Some of those companies have produced far more than some nations. What of it?

The corporations being more powerful than nations is a thing, but is tangential. Corporations are controlled by charter and regulations of the nation they incorporate in and are accountable on more fronts than an individual actor. This is a discussion of what happens when individuals have access to state-scale resources of their own personal possession.

Tons of corporations are worth a billion dollars, many more than individual humans are worth a billion dollars, and the implications and side effects of each controlling such large centralized capital differ substantially because of the rules of business they each abide by.

Re: All 500 of the world's top 500 supercomputers are running Linux

#80

Post by andr3w321 »

derefr wrote: post #72
andr3w321 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Investor accreditation makes sense (for now.)" No it doesn't. It's pure nanny statism. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't invest in or spend their money on. Yes startups are risky. So are lots of things. Why should the wealthy have no restrictions on them, but the poor do? This is literally "class warfare".

The government isn't telling people what they can invest in; it's telling companies whether they can take people's money. It's not illegal to hand money to a private company (you will not be charged with a crime); it's illegal to, as the company, accept that money. Private companies are a very specific kind of company—they're supposed to be a temporary condition, a way for companies to not have to go through the effo…

Regarding the FDA I don't think the government should be telling me what drugs I can and can't take. Plenty of people are denied from taking early stage drugs because they are not FDA approved and dangerous, but if people are aware of the risks I think they should have every right to take them.

In your poison cucumber example I think this would qualify as knowingly poisoning someone else which is clearly illegal and we do not need the FDA for that. As long as the cucumber is labeled as "poison" I have no problem with people selling them.

Post reply on HN