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

Leonard Kleinrock on what went wrong with the internet

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–327 of 327 posts

Re: Leonard Kleinrock on what went wrong with the internet

#321

Post by n0rbwah »

vultour wrote: post #42
bilbo0s wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly in my opinion. My understanding of the passage is that he wants to block the entire website outright. So not, "Look at reddit, but block ads." Rather it would be, "Block reddit." Curiously, blocking the entire website outright due to incompatible privacy policies is a solution I never really even considered? It certainly changes the dynamic game theoretically speaking. I wonder what the internet would be…

This already sort of happens with ad-blocker-blockers, except the other way around. You signal to the website you don’t want the privacy-invasive mess that are ads, the website tells you to sod off.

And then, you install an ad-blocker-blocker-blocker

Re: Leonard Kleinrock on what went wrong with the internet

#322

Post by [deleted] »

joshklein wrote: post #263
malvosenior wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On balance, cars -- at least our ability to use them -- has been a huge negative. Honestly there's no way this is true. How many people would die if they couldn't use an ambulance? How many people are surviving on goods shipped to them via trucks? Of course things can be improved, but there's no way the automobile was a net negative on humanity.

What if the larger story of the industrialization enabled by that trucking warms the planet to the point that humanity goes extinct? Something to at least consider; unintended consequences are still consequences.

[deleted]

Re: Leonard Kleinrock on what went wrong with the internet

#323

Post by malvosenior »

manthedudeguy wrote: post #278
malvosenior wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On balance, cars -- at least our ability to use them -- has been a huge negative. Honestly there's no way this is true. How many people would die if they couldn't use an ambulance? How many people are surviving on goods shipped to them via trucks? Of course things can be improved, but there's no way the automobile was a net negative on humanity.

"There's no way". What a compelling argument. There's "no way" that 60 million people would have died in the 20th century if there was no such thing as an ambulance. I'm positive we would have invented a workable replacement.

"I'm positive we would have invented a workable replacement." is also not a compelling argument :)

It's actually rather absurd to suggest automobiles were a net negative. They are one of the greatest inventions in the history of humanity. It's like saying electricity is a net negative.

Re: Leonard Kleinrock on what went wrong with the internet

#324

Post by malvosenior »

joshklein wrote: post #263
malvosenior wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On balance, cars -- at least our ability to use them -- has been a huge negative. Honestly there's no way this is true. How many people would die if they couldn't use an ambulance? How many people are surviving on goods shipped to them via trucks? Of course things can be improved, but there's no way the automobile was a net negative on humanity.

What if the larger story of the industrialization enabled by that trucking warms the planet to the point that humanity goes extinct? Something to at least consider; unintended consequences are still consequences.

Humanity is not at risk of going extinct from global warming.

Re: Leonard Kleinrock on what went wrong with the internet

#325

Post by oblio »

Faark wrote: post #300
codegeek wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a fair question. I assumed based on my own experience that this is very clear but let me clarify. I am privileged to be living in the United States (richest country in the world) but I am originally an immigrant even though that was 20+ years ago. I hire people from all over the world as freelancers from time to time. Internet allows me to hire some random person from a random part of the world and in many case…

Seems like you only look at one side. I thought by now we have mostly understood that unlimited globalization also has dark sides, especially for the broader local population in richer countries. To me the sentiment of GPs post felt like "internet makes it better on average for all of us". You're "now I very easy can find even cheaper workers" doesn't support that, even though it certainly is an improvement to a sele…

> even though it certainly is an improvement to a select few at the very bottom

1. "a select few" is disingenuous. A lot of people have benefited from it.

2. One could say that morally, the people "at the very bottom" deserve more help than "the broader local population in richer countries".

Re: Leonard Kleinrock on what went wrong with the internet

#326

Post by Faark »

oblio wrote: post #325
Faark wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you only look at one side. I thought by now we have mostly understood that unlimited globalization also has dark sides, especially for the broader local population in richer countries. To me the sentiment of GPs post felt like "internet makes it better on average for all of us". You're "now I very easy can find even cheaper workers" doesn't support that, even though it certainly is an improvement to a sele…

> even though it certainly is an improvement to a select few at the very bottom 1. "a select few" is disingenuous. A lot of people have benefited from it. 2. One could say that morally, the people "at the very bottom" deserve more help than "the broader local population in richer countries".

1. I admit "select few" being hyperbole. The intended sentiment was it helping fewer people than it is screwing over.

2. Its nice you want to help the people who have it the worst. But you better be ready for the consequences, like a fascist getting 23% of votes a few days ago in a local german election. What people feel is important. Yes, the policy might be raising living standards of everyone. But if it predominantly helps those at the top of the capitalist system and some "few" people far away, then people will feel screwed over and demand change. Though by now we seem to get closer to "revolution". I'd prefer not to live through a revolution.

Re: Leonard Kleinrock on what went wrong with the internet

#327

Post by cartoonworld »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #317
cartoonworld wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would wager these unflintchingly ethical telcos are bideing their time on this one. The beancounters are probably salivating about ideas such as this one from a few years ago: "In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages," he wrote. "A huge advantage for entrenched companies, but it totally ices out startups trying to get in front of people which stifles innov…

Why do we need to look at Portugal? Net Neutrality was only in effect from 2015-2017. We have decades of experience in the US without net neutrality, and it has been fine for small publishers. Do you really think the beancounters care about Mommy Bloggers, or Bob's Keto Korner? If anything, they are looking at big dogs with lots of cash that use lots of bandwidth like Netflix and upstart startups like Disney.

Well, you're right that the internet has not yet turned into Cable TV style bundling, and you're double-right that they could hardly care less about Kombucha Korner.com.

The crappy swings at CaTV-style service bundling that the telcos have whiffed so far such as Uverse failed to grab enough momentum to jack any of the internet streaming video limelight from youtube, netflix, or really anything from anything else at all. Who really uses Comcast's, or even Verizon FIOS' bundled voice service? A gas station before they get fed up?

Also, please consider Verizon's NXDOMAIN[0]: Purposefully hijacking RFC behavior in order to slurp in a few extra ad clicks off of granny. And if that doesn't just scream "Corporate Governance", I've heard they know which porn I visit. I mean, no surprise here, but my point is that while I really like my car insurance and recommend it to my friends, boy howdy, I have never enjoyed interacting with any telco for any reason, ever.

But, I wonder--if the FCC had never bothered with regulating away the gale-force of swarming telcos voraciously borging away at the PCS spectrum in the 1990s, would MVNE services even be available today? And if they weren't, or were just really shabby, How would The Bell Collective choose to market its services to the low end of the cube market? I mean would they program customers to remit extra currency units for a special Verizon speed-charge port for your alcove or something? Their service couldn't possibly be that bad. Everybody here would be out of the job.

Nowadays, AT&T Uverse keeps putting on for some reason, meanwhile at Comcast and Verizon, their top lobbyists have miraculously cured their chronic internet content aversion syndrome, commence with bundling Netflix. On the other side of the cubefarm, just past that one weird closet nobody ever goes into, Verizon Wireless is slowing some of its MVNO customers.[1] This is fair play too, since two years ago I'd say. Who is to blame them for propping up their own quality of service at their competitors expense if there is no regulatory recourse?

I realize that Verizon Wireless and Verizon Verizon are not the same Verizon, for some Verizon, even though they're both owned by Verizon. Regarding Verizon, I have met many former and current Verizon customers. I assure you, we are very certain that neither Verizon nor Verizon Verizon would deign to charge you any less out of the goodness of its heart.

Helpfully, they seem quite eager to itemize regulatory fees and taxes.

So I'd say you're triple-right about looking at Verizon-er, uh, I mean Portugal.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_hijacking#Manipulation_by_...

[1] How MVNOs compare to Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint: https://www.tutela.com/blog/best-mvno-us-2018-consumer-cellu...

Post reply on HN