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

Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 185 posts

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#111

Post by whb07 »

mjlawson wrote: post #94
whb07 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). What you’re doing now is imposing the current day to the past, like looking at the current Airbnb and pretending that’s how it was when it first started. What if perhaps today wouldn’t be achieved if there had been so many rules and regulations? So picture the same government from now and…

That's a really unfair comparison. Suggesting that all regulation is akin to your marmalade example is akin to suggesting that we shouldn't enforce any laws because adultery laws are still on the books. There are good laws, and there are bad laws. There is good regulation, and there is bad regulation. The solution is to curate from the good set, and weed out from the bad set - not to throw the baby out with the bathw…

The problem is that many rules just get compounded like shitty layers that needs more turds to make up for the past turds.

If there was a temporary cleansing or removing of all laws and therefore the good ones would get immediately reinstated then perhaps that’s a better path.

Which coincidentally is exactly what Trumps executive order is attempting to do. Remove 2 for every 1 turd that gets added.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#112

Post by cygx »

whb07 wrote: post #88
tehabe wrote: post #72

I disagree with Thiel on almost every page on this document. And I don't know which topic to really critise. Like his view on regulation, which he calls a burden. I don't want to live in a world w/o regulations, I want to know what is in my food, I want to know that the devices I use are safe. We could see what happens, when regulation fails, when two 737MAX crashed due to the fact that Boeing was able to hide MCAS f…

I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). What you’re doing now is imposing the current day to the past, like looking at the current Airbnb and pretending that’s how it was when it first started. What if perhaps today wouldn’t be achieved if there had been so many rules and regulations? So picture the same government from now and…

I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously).

Personally, I prefer that to the days of radioactive toothpaste.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#114

Post by noetic_techy »

So lets cut to the chase shall we: what would be the non-biotech arrangement of atoms that we can conceive of now that would be mega technological leaps for our species and achievable within 10 years of investment?

I think making things not accessible for a single person financially would be the my main focus. You can do things today that your ancestors had no chance of accessing, so what things would be the next quantum leap for your productivity that currently only the uber-rich have access to?

I will start:

- Robot Servants - Eliminate of all trivial work and leave the creative endeavors for humans. Think about if 1 person could start a factory with the capital he saves from his full-time job.

- Space Elevator or equivalent - Access to space is achievable for even small 1 person operations.

- Fusion Reactors - Unlimited clean energy for said people, robots and factories. Couple that with some infrastructure to beam it into space and you could have some VERY interesting things emerge.

My theme is: Access to labor, access to resources, access to energy.

Anyone have any other ideas?

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#115

Post by whb07 »

_Microft wrote: post #100
whb07 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). What you’re doing now is imposing the current day to the past, like looking at the current Airbnb and pretending that’s how it was when it first started. What if perhaps today wouldn’t be achieved if there had been so many rules and regulations? So picture the same government from now and…

Why is it not permitted to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits?

Because you’d create PB&J addicts! Can you imagine the scoundrels walking around eating delicious toast and jelly?

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#116

Post by whb07 »

cygx wrote: post #112
whb07 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). What you’re doing now is imposing the current day to the past, like looking at the current Airbnb and pretending that’s how it was when it first started. What if perhaps today wouldn’t be achieved if there had been so many rules and regulations? So picture the same government from now and…

I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). Personally, I prefer that to the days of radioactive toothpaste.

I’d like to be given the option to. Why should you prevent me a free adult from doing it?

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#117

Post by _Microft »

mjlawson wrote: post #110
_Microft wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it not permitted to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits?

There's nothing saying you can't. You just can't call it a jam or a marmalade as that has a very specific definition in people's minds. The law itself is detailed here[1]. [1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFR...

Thanks, I was trying to set them up for a "Chesterton's fence" situation tbh ;)

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#118

Post by ramraj07 »

moralestapia wrote: post #28

On Page 92, under Biotech, >The problem that I remain the most passionate about is for us to make some real and continued progress in the fight against aging and death. But how does one help? Really. I've been in academia for more than 10 years. I've had done some really promising stuff and know people with pretty cool projects that are 1,000% worth pursuing. Yet I have found virtually zero support as I don't play we…

Totally agreed. Dumped (hopefully temporarily) a decade of bio training due to this. I think the fundamental issue with every attempt at reinventing biology research is that they end up recruiting the same professors from academia who bring the exact same culture with them.

The ideal institution that can break this cycle will have funding (only limited, see Hammings lecture) from a source with no questions or expectations, and be worked on by people with almost no academic influence. But they can't be herectics or crackpots because you can't just hack your way around biology like you did with computers. This is more akin to reinventing the transistor than creating tiktok.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#119

Post by Hypx »

vngzs wrote: post #59

> If meaningful scientific and technological progress occurs, then we reasonably would expect greater economic prosperity (though this may be offset by other factors). And also in reverse: If economic gains, as measured by certain key indicators, have been limited or nonexistent, then perhaps so has scientific and technological progress. My eye-opening realization of American stagnation came in history class during h…

You should at least bring up the story of Max Planck in the late 1800s. He was basically told not to enter physics, because supposedly nearly all of physics has already been discovery. We know what came next in physics.

We don't know the future, and there's no way to say for sure that we've see the last big changes in life. Your grandparents could be proven laughably wrong in next few decades.

That said, it is likely at this point that we've exhausted the current paradigm. That there isn't much left to gain in maximizing existing scientific theories, or pumping billions into mature technologies. These concepts and philosophies have failed to real creating something of note lately, and that might be a sign that they are at their limits.

So the next step would be a step-change function and something completely unexpected.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#120

Post by [deleted] »

vngzs wrote: post #59

> If meaningful scientific and technological progress occurs, then we reasonably would expect greater economic prosperity (though this may be offset by other factors). And also in reverse: If economic gains, as measured by certain key indicators, have been limited or nonexistent, then perhaps so has scientific and technological progress. My eye-opening realization of American stagnation came in history class during h…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN