[dead]
Things that I think will be important in the next decade
341–350 of 368 posts
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#342The number of people in this thread that apparently know the secret, nefarious intentions that Zuckerberg truly has is... Well, not surprising, given that this is the internet and Hacker News. :)
Well, this is a thread speculating about the future decade, reflecting on a guy's insights who has a dubious track record, by intelligent people that are in the loop of current tech trends.
I'm amused by this assessment given how you could pretty much say the exact same comment in reverse.
Specifically, between these "intelligent people [on Hacker News]" and a "guy [with] dubious insights", one of these groups has a couple of billion dollars invested in every single one of the topics in the document whereas the other... well, maybe Bill or Jeff or Satya or one of the others reads Hacker News, but I doubt it. :)
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#343>I don't think private companies should be making so many important decisions that touch on fundamental democratic values... As long as our governments are seen as legitimate, rules established through a democratic process could add more legitimacy and trust than rules defined by companies alone. This is a big chicken and egg problem. Mark wants the government to set the rules but what happens when Facebook doesn't m…
His post is about the reality of the future, not his ideal desire of the future.
I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing these twi very different perspectives.
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#344The number of people in this thread that apparently know the secret, nefarious intentions that Zuckerberg truly has is... Well, not surprising, given that this is the internet and Hacker News. :)
This thread is a good example of how HackerNews has become less about analysis and informed commentary, and more about opinions and advocacy.
I look at Mark's post and I see him being honest with people about how he believes the world is going to evolve - not necessarily how he wants it to evolve, nor how Facebook even intends to move forward.
Everyone is so blinded by their emotional hatred of Mark that they cannot stomach discussing the points he is making.
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't actually have many customer-facing product wins on the strength of their GUIs / UX to its credit, period. Google search was minimalist. Android followed everyone else in the market, and hasn't iterated core UX much since. G Suite office apps were acquired, and mostly cloned Office online. Same with Gmail. Maps is about the only heavily-used app, and I wouldn't call its design revolutionary (or even goo…
> Google search was minimalist That's a feature. > Maybe I'm missing something major Yes.
What product am I missing?
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#346I wish I could downvote this self-promoting post
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
As for me, I didn't get a DM, just a shadow ban for a controversial comment (xiphias is my original user name). A few months after not ever being voted up somebody wrote to me that she sees that I'm shadow banned even though I'm writing constructive comments. At the same time I don't know anything even comparable to HN, so I shy away from controversial wording / topics, and this way things that I write goes through t…
You weren't shadowbanned—we told you explicitly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15725493 .
Ah, I see, thanks!
I was still posting and didn't see any sign that my account is banned, maybe it would be a good feature for HN (or not being able to log in).
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no word to replace required that wouldn't be open to your complaint; e.g. needed, necessary Appreciated is an appropriate word, you subconsciously swapped in required . A citation is required if the goal is to maximize constructive communication - if that's the goal, of course.
You missed my point, I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work. Clearly we are talking by each other on this.
I agree, we're clearly not understanding each other perfectly, I think this phenomenon is all too common and it's worth some mild effort to investigate where things have gone wrong.
The original comment:
> Citations to your references would be appreciated. It's the first step to overcoming the state of internet disinformation, as well as helping society overcome the fear of missing out just because someone doesn't already know your references.
This request (and it's just that, nothing more) seems reasonable.
This subsequent comment exchange:
>> All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers.
> This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment.
...specifically: "laundered with the trust of the first comment" seems like perfectly valid criticism, and arguably adds to the "onus" (or value in) for the original person to provide a proper citation, in order to minimize misunderstanding.
And then here is where I see a problem arises:
> Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum.
You are criticizing someone for saying a citation is required, but it is you that introduced the idea of it being a requirement into the conversation - which is what I pointed out (perhaps not as eloquently as I should/could have).
Your subsequent reasoning:
> I deliberately swapped so you could see how that word doesn't work
...doesn't make sense to me. Replacing the original word with a new one that has a distinctly different meaning, and then criticizing OP for the new meaning of the sentence, doesn't make sense to me.
Am I misunderstanding somehow?
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google+ comes to mind and the time when thousands of engineers couldn't stir the interest of public to turn to the service
Google+ failed because Google didn't know what they wanted it to be. I don't think that's down to engineering. That's a product and marketing problem. AR is a little different because it's not a product; Facebook's AR apps might fail, but Zuck's vision could still succeed if Facebook create (or acquire) tools for creating an AR ecosystem.
Mass media social networks are a winner-take-all game. All but one candidates will fail, and the success of that winner is all but certain to be based on a mix of ideosyncratic or non-apparent characteristics, though founding cohort can be and has been a major success factor.
Two of the largest online social networks to date have emerged from the highly-selective university space: Usenet (UCLA, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, UI, Rutgers, etc.), and Facebook (once: literally Harvard).
Google+ might have been able to grow from its tech roots. My sense is that Google's marketing-and-advertising focus (and community), as well as gross mismanagement, doomed its attempt, nudged with some active antipropaganda from other sources, notably Facebook. That's not to say it would have succeeded, but there were numerous self- and externally-imposed injuries.
Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade
#350,,Today, many important institutions in our society still aren't doing enough to address the issues younger generations face -- from climate change to runaway costs of education, housing and healthcare. '' Maybe there are ways to improve the quality of discussions _within_ Facebook to help solve these problems. It works for Hacker News, so I don't think it would be impossible. Of course indirect revenue from oil comp…
HN is essentially a hive mind cult. Look at my join date. At some point, you could dissent with your own opinion. Nowadays it’s downvotes and outrage. Shields up — ready for the downvotes. Not a great model for FB to follow. You’ll start getting DMs from people like “dang” telling you to behave, LOL.
There are several identifiable commenting communities, and quite a few different voices.
I consider myself a dissident voice. Whilst my input isn't always appreciated, it often is, and I've found some measure of success pressing back against several of the more notable hivemind sentiments.
Not taking the challenge personally helps. Finding your own best argument also. Persistence pays off.