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

My new favorite book of all time

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 421 posts

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#101

Post by notatoad »

voidmain0001 wrote: post #18
yarapavan wrote: post #2

Interesting facts discussed: * The global average IQ score is rising by about 3 IQ points every decade. * Time spent doing laundry fell from 11.5 hours a week in 1920 to an hour and a half in 2014.

If you live in an area with reasonably priced electricity and access to plentiful water. I lived in Honduras for 3 years (2009 - 2012) and laundry consumed far too much of my time because water in the community came twice per week, and electricity was expensive. I had a cistern which was connected to the water main, and I installed a floating shut off valve so that I could leave the valve open to fill with water when…

I believe th hour and a half is a global average. So the many hours you spend in Honduras is balanced by the 15 minutes a week I spend on laundry.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#102

Post by adventured »

dragonwriter wrote: post #98
adventured wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let me see if I have this straight. Highly respected, four star general, Wesley Clark says that the Iraq war was about attempting to strip Russian influence out of the Middle East. That the plan was to knock over several of the dictatorships there, which were overwhelmingly friendly toward Russia and hostile toward the US and its allies. You're saying it was about oil primarily. Yet the US didn't take Iraq's oil.…

> Highly respected, four star general, Wesley Clark says that the Iraq war was about attempting to strip Russian influence out of the Middle East. That the plan was to knock over several of the dictatorships there, which were overwhelmingly friendly toward Russia and hostile toward the US and its allies. > You're saying it was about oil primarily. Those aren't conflicting explanations; the US is concerned about the f…

Your premise is refuted by the fact that China is the primary customer of Middle Eastern oil today, and will overwhelmingly be tomorrow. Please explain to me how it was in the US interest to topple Saddam, lose a couple trillion dollars in national treasure, all so China could increase its power and influence by securing critical oil supplies and displace the US influence in the Middle East.

And when it comes to enemies, neither Iran nor Russia have need of external oil supplies.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#104

Post by JorgeGT »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #85
JorgeGT wrote: post #72

> Time spent doing laundry fell from 11.5 hours a week in 1920 to an hour and a half in 2014. This might sound trivial in the grand scheme of progress. But the rise of the washing machine has improved quality of life by freeing up time for people—mostly women—to enjoy other pursuits. This. I remember following Reddit AMAs of two centenarian women, women who remembered SS troops arriving at their village, who watched…

It’s worth noting that the act of sorting, inserting, removing, and putting away clothing is not very labor intensive. Having to manually wash each article of clothing takes actual effort, which can be quite tiring. It’s not easy to engage in other pursuits when one is tired out from physical labor. One could argue that the savings in exertion even outweigh the savings in time.

As someone whose washing machine broke the other day mid-washing, having to do the laundry old-style, I cannot agree more with you.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#105

Post by Letmesleep69 »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #92

This article/video explains why so many people have completely lost faith in our technocratic elite. The idea that "You’re 37 times less likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning than you were at the turn of the century" makes a large difference in the happiness of people is ridiculous. Why are people pessimistic about the future? Maybe its because the rates of addiction (including to smart phones and other screens)…

> The idea that "You’re 37 times less likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning than you were at the turn of the century" makes a large difference in the happiness of people is ridiculous.

I believe he put that in as an interesting, somewhat unexpected benefit of modern life. His next few arguments are what really backs up his points.

> Maybe its because rates of marriage and church attendance are on the decline.

As someone from a country where the church held far too much sway and still tries to hold back the rights of gay people and forbid abortions I take a lot of hope from the fact that people are attending church less.

> Maybe its because of the debasement of our culture and education.

I don't think western culture or education has been debased at all. Can you elaborate?

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#106

Post by dotancohen »

topleveldomain wrote: post #17

" War is illegal. This idea seems obvious. But before the creation of the United Nations in 1945, no institution had the power to stop countries from going to war with each other. Although there have been some exceptions, the threat of international sanctions and intervention has proven to be an effective deterrent to wars between nations." I would argue that something else that happened in 1945 has been a much bigge…

The bombed-out city that turned the Europeans was Dresden. Not Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Dresden.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#107

Post by dragonwriter »

adventured wrote: post #102
dragonwriter wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Highly respected, four star general, Wesley Clark says that the Iraq war was about attempting to strip Russian influence out of the Middle East. That the plan was to knock over several of the dictatorships there, which were overwhelmingly friendly toward Russia and hostile toward the US and its allies. > You're saying it was about oil primarily. Those aren't conflicting explanations; the US is concerned about the f…

Your premise is refuted by the fact that China is the primary customer of Middle Eastern oil today, and will overwhelmingly be tomorrow. Please explain to me how it was in the US interest to topple Saddam, lose a couple trillion dollars in national treasure, all so China could increase its power and influence by securing critical oil supplies and displace the US influence in the Middle East. And when it comes to enem…

> Your premise is refuted by the fact that China is the primary customer of Middle Eastern oil today

No, it's not, because the US concern outside of a major war, again, isn't who buys it but pumping and pricing policy.

If we were in a major war with China now and that was true, it would suggest that the policy had been unsuccessful in achieving a key goal, but even then wouldn't refute that that had been the policy goal.

> And when it comes to enemies, neither Iran nor Russia have need of external oil supplies.

Perhaps (though maintain any kind of optempo in a major war requires more than just adequate supplies for peacetime consumption, even after the inevitable rationing of non-militart use) but even so they do have an interest in having supplies denied to an external enemy like, say, the US. Which motivates a desire to influence other exporters.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#108

Post by mcguire »

jmilloy wrote: post #30
topleveldomain wrote: post #17

" War is illegal. This idea seems obvious. But before the creation of the United Nations in 1945, no institution had the power to stop countries from going to war with each other. Although there have been some exceptions, the threat of international sanctions and intervention has proven to be an effective deterrent to wars between nations." I would argue that something else that happened in 1945 has been a much bigge…

Yeah. It seems to me that it's not so much that "war is illegal" as "certain countries have declared a monopoly on force and have the means to enforce it." Or at least try to. That's probably a good thing, but it seems useful to me to approach it with a more accurate perspective.

The "Pax Americana".

That term isn't right, since there are a few other countries involved, but it brings to mind the right associations.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#109

Post by pron »

iamcasen wrote: post #88
chippy wrote: post #47

The British philosopher John Gray is a good counterpart to Pinker's idea of progress. He focuses on the myths of progress, civilisation and freedom. This is his response to Pinker: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-stev... "A new orthodoxy, led by Pinker, holds that war and violence in the developed world are declining. The stats are misleading, argues Gray – and the idea of moral progress is wi…

Thank you. I couldn't help but feel like Pinker is peddling feel-good nonsense to sell books, and give people hope to cling to. Progress or betterment is entirely subjective, and when considering the human condition, relies on too many variables to even count. Of course, the variables the Pinker focuses on have gotten better overall. The way I see it is a chaotic scatterplot that is trending slightly upwards towards…

Pinker is much more nefarious (and you can know that by going to his talks, as I have, where he's more loose-tongued than in his books). He places such emphasis on the fact that the world is getting better as a rebuttal to "complainers" and political activists. The problem is not with his premise but with his conclusion. The world has been getting better (to the extent that it has) because people complain and are dissatisfied, and because they take political action to make the world better. The world has not been getting better on its own; people have made it better through political struggle.

Re: My new favorite book of all time

#110

Post by intrasight »

topleveldomain wrote: post #17

" War is illegal. This idea seems obvious. But before the creation of the United Nations in 1945, no institution had the power to stop countries from going to war with each other. Although there have been some exceptions, the threat of international sanctions and intervention has proven to be an effective deterrent to wars between nations." I would argue that something else that happened in 1945 has been a much bigge…

I think the fact that liberal democracies don't go to war was the main reason - at least amongst western democracies. And even among non liberal democracies (eg China and Russia) as long as there is enough wealth and quality of lifestyle at risk amongst the ruling elite, there's not going to be much appetite for war.
Post reply on HN