Live data from Hacker News

Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

larvatus.com

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the premise of every one of his books "scientists fuck it up, leading to exciting circumstances"? Even if he has written books that don't follow this pattern, Jurassic Park surely does; I'm not sure why you didn't mention it yourself

> Isn't the premise of every one of his books "scientists fuck it up, leading to exciting circumstances"? No, that's an inaccurate and uncharitable summarization of his literary career. Scientists fucking up covers some of his more popular works accurately, Jurassic Park more than the rest, but other stories have the scientists/doctors working hard to save lives, or otherwise behaving admirably. Sphere has the scient…

Great roundup, I agree with all of this.

> Scientists fucking up covers some of his more popular works accurately, Jurassic Park more than the rest

To this I would add: one group of scientists are fucking up, but another group are trying to do the right thing.

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#62

As a programmer, I've noticed that while the media is often wrong about technical details, they are also often ahead of me in terms of the social impacts of technology. I thought since they didn't know how FB and Twitter work under the hood they would also be wrong about the social devastation it would cause. Turns out I know more computers. They know more about people.

those platforms were vehicles for the media to spread misinformation and fear - yet you blame the platforms more than you blame the authors for the devistation?

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#63
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Our times are different" thrown around without care is a very widespread cognitive error. Absolutely right. The Book of Ecclesiastes talks about this at great length. History repeats, no-one will remember those of us alive today, and the people who follow us will also be forgotten by those who follow them. >even if you do believe in one of them the rest must be concluded as millenia old fake news A religion would n…

If we were on the decline since Homer we would already be living in caves grunting at each other. Perhaps what is being lamented is that the successful found their offspring lesser not just because the properties that made themselves notable weren't heritable that they ultimately arose from circumstances they naturally strove to prevent. If adversity results in 70% dead or broken, 20% damaged, and 10% triumphant what…

Caves would be a step up from tent cities, and we grunt at each other these days in 140 characters or less--even our kings!

People follow their GPS systems off of bridges into lakes, our ancestors could navigate by the stars. Our bards earn their fame via marketing, and sing their songs using autotune, the bards of old memorized huge corpuses and sang them live. Our ancestors built the Great Wall of China, the U.S. struggles to build the Great Chain-Link Fence. Our academics hack p-values and they publish their work behind for-profit paywalls. When Archimedes discovered how to measure volumes of irregular objects, he ran naked through the streets shouting "Eureka!" When was the last time anyone at the Large Hadron Collider did that?

Our self-help books are generally not worth the paper they're written on. They're written by charlatans and marketed by professional marketers. None of them will be remembered fifty years from now. Ancient self-help books like the Gospels, the Tao Te Ching, the Proverbs of Solomon, these stand the test of time and help countless people every day. They are timeless and evergreen. They'll continue helping people a thousand years from now.

"So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: 'I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.'" ~Saint Matthew, quoting a Psalm which was already ancient in Jesus's time

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#65
Wait a sec, didn't the steel prices increase (and didn't the tarrifs cause lots of other issues)? Was that coincidence?

Here's an analysis : https://www.tradepartnership.com/pdf_files/2002jobstudy.pdf , written in Feb 2003 (Tariffs were imposed in 2002, which was when NY times article was written https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/us/bush-puts-tariffs-of-a...)

Their summary:

"We found that:

• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.3

• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.

• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4

• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).

• Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in California (19,392 jobs lost), Texas (15,826 jobs lost), Ohio (10,553 jobs lost), Michigan (9,829 jobs lost), Illinois (9,621 jobs lost), Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost), New York (8,901 jobs lost) and Florida (8,370 jobs lost). Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices.

• While insufficient data exist at this time to measure the precise role steel tariffs played in causing such significant price increases, relative to the other factors, it is clear that the Section 201 tariffs played a leading role in pushing prices up. Steel tariffs caused shortages of imported product and put U.S. manufacturers of steel-containing products at a disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors. In the absence of the tariffs, the damage to steel consuming employment would have been significantly less than it was in 2002.

• The analysis shows that American steel consumers have borne heavy costs from higher steel prices caused by shortages, tariffs and trade remedy duties, among other factors. Some customers of steel consumers have moved sourcing offshore as U.S. producers of steel-containing products became less reliable and more expensive. Other customers refused to accept higher prices from their suppliers and forced them to absorb the higher steel costs, which put many in a precarious (or worse) financial condition. The impact on steel-consuming industries has been significant. In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered."

Oh and the chart they publish of prices from 2002 shows the following:

HR Sheet metal: went from about $220 to $300 ($ per ton) an increase of 36% HD Galvanized metal: went from $330 to $460 an increase of 39% CR Sheet metal: went from $305 to $405 an increase of 32%

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#66
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were on the decline since Homer we would already be living in caves grunting at each other. Perhaps what is being lamented is that the successful found their offspring lesser not just because the properties that made themselves notable weren't heritable that they ultimately arose from circumstances they naturally strove to prevent. If adversity results in 70% dead or broken, 20% damaged, and 10% triumphant what…

Caves would be a step up from tent cities, and we grunt at each other these days in 140 characters or less--even our kings! People follow their GPS systems off of bridges into lakes, our ancestors could navigate by the stars. Our bards earn their fame via marketing, and sing their songs using autotune, the bards of old memorized huge corpuses and sang them live. Our ancestors built the Great Wall of China, the U.S. s…

You are wrong on nearly every point.

- Most of us aren't living in tent cities.

- We are conversing in this thread in more than 140 characters per response

- Trump isn't our king.

- I a poor person have more really good music on my hard drive then the average person would have been privileged to hear in their lifetime. Most of everything has always been crap but digital copying and cheap gear makes it possible to filter more gems from the dross than you can probably listen to. It has always been fashionable to compare whatever some consider the best of the last several decades to the last several months, ignore the nature of the comparison and bemoan modern music.

- We struggle to build a great wall of America because its a stupid measure to appease racists who think the brown people are coming for their country.

- To create and distribute the written word has never been cheaper. Imagine if you and I had to write hundreds of letters to all of the readers who have chanced across this thread!? To compare your preferred edition of the Christian bible solely to crappy self help books and ignore all the really good works out there is either ignorant or deceptive.

- Academia has never been pure. It's never been free of ignorance, bias, pride, liars, asshats of all stripes, outright stupidity. Science is the merely a method to gradually build upon existing human knowledge despite human foibles.

You believe your religion and its wisdom eternal only because you lack perspective. If the human race lasts thousands of years it will likely little resemble we poorer cousins as ill equipped as a 3 year old is to predict adulthood.

Open your eyes!

        I met a traveller from an antique land,
        Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
        Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
        Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
        And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
        Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
        Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
        The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
        And on the pedestal, these words appear:
        My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
        Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
        Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
        Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
        The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#67
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caves would be a step up from tent cities, and we grunt at each other these days in 140 characters or less--even our kings! People follow their GPS systems off of bridges into lakes, our ancestors could navigate by the stars. Our bards earn their fame via marketing, and sing their songs using autotune, the bards of old memorized huge corpuses and sang them live. Our ancestors built the Great Wall of China, the U.S. s…

You are wrong on nearly every point. - Most of us aren't living in tent cities. - We are conversing in this thread in more than 140 characters per response - Trump isn't our king. - I a poor person have more really good music on my hard drive then the average person would have been privileged to hear in their lifetime. Most of everything has always been crap but digital copying and cheap gear makes it possible to fil…

Nice quote. I love the double-meaning in that poem. "Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair", intended by Ozymandias to mean "despair because you are so much weaker", but the double-meaning is "despair because my fall reveals how all human things decay". Look upon my great scientific works, my great technological strides, my space stations and satellites, ye Mighty, and despair!

We could keep talking past each other. Instead, let me short-circuit that and hand you the victory. All you need to reveal what a child and a fool I am is to recite my own Bible back at me:

"Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is unwise of you to ask about this." (Ecclesiastes 7:10)

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so... if he was really cranky he wouldn't have called it speculation, which is an extremely generous word for what can easily be interpreted as intentionally manipulative narrative.

It seems like a pretty broadly defeatist attitude towards current actions having agency over the future: > We need to start remembering that everybody who said that Y2K wasn’t a real problem was either shouted down, or kept off the air. > But my point is, for pending legislation as with everything else, nobody knows the future. > What will be the effect of electing a certain president, or a supreme court justice? Nob…

This raises my hackles every time I see it (enough to create an account and post): Y2K was ABSOLUTELY a real problem.

There was an enormous amount of money spent prepping for it years before 2000. In 1995, a few years after I graduated from college I got a moonlighting job cleaning databases for a UK phone company, manually editing 2 digit dates to 4 digit dates (I didn't know PERL existed at the time). Yeah, nothing major happened Jan 31 1999, but that's because there was a real, concerted effort to address it that wasn't trumpeted across the news media.

Not directed at you, I just needed to yell at a cloud.

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#69
post #7

10 years ago, I was a religious Techcrunch reader. I read every article. Eventually, I noticed something peculiar: I'd have an idea for a startup, and six months or so later (about the time it would've taken me to do it) someone would come out with that idea! It happened enough times that it pushed me to stop reading the same tech news as everyone else, because I didn't want to succumb to group think. I've since exte…

Almost 10 years ago, I conducted an experiment.

I watched an hour of CNN's every night but it was never that night's coverage. It was from exactly two weeks ago.

It was amazing how much "breaking news!" was irrelevant or just outright wrong, how many large trend predictions were wrong, and how many "[person] will do X" were wrong. While the predictions could have been portrayed as opinions, they were presented as facts and the obvious next steps or conclusions.

I realized pretty quickly that avoiding CNN kept out the blatantly wrong information so even if I didn't replace it with anything, I was net ahead.

A few years ago, I discovered this and realized that some portion of it was probably on purpose:

https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-...

Re: Michael Crichton: Why Speculate? (2005)

#70
post #36

> For example, here is The New York Times for March 6, the day Dick Farson told me I was giving this talk. The column one story for that day concerns Bush’s tariffs on imported steel. Now we read: Mr. Bush’s action “is likely to send the price of steel up sharply, perhaps as much as ten percent…” American consumers “will ultimately bear” higher prices. America’s allies “would almost certainly challenge” the decision.…

We could settle this if the media and pundits documented their predictions and tracked how often they were correct.

Imagine knowing a particular pundit was right 99% of the time! When he/she spoke, I'd listen and invest accordingly.

Post reply on HN