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

141–150 of 185 posts

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#141

Post by noetic_techy »

dustingetz wrote: post #139
noetic_techy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Eric Weinstein would agree with you on this point. You should really listen to his podcast with Peter Thiel where they talk about similar interests disrupting advancement (The Portal - Episode 1). I don't buy the argument that the whole system is therefore useless and corrupt, but that it very much needs intervention to keep this sort of regulatory capture from occurring.

FAAMG is like 20% of the GDP of the USA, the state can't intervene with itself

Do what we did in the past with monopolies: break them up. Trust busting to increase diversity and competition, just like the railroads of past. I would consider the advent of social media to be on the level of the advent of the railroad or the car. Same with search (Google) and even Amazon (mega online store with fast delivery). At the very least subsidize Walmart or some other competitor to build out a competitive advantage and eliminate Amazons head start.

Very disappointed we don't have a Windows phone as an alternative also. I think 3 is the bare minimum for a technology to have good competition. So why not.

My overall point though is the same, regulatory capture is bad and we should fight it regardless of monopolies or not.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#142

Post by moralestapia »

tatrajim wrote: post #74
biomcgary wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not GP, but science is becoming increasingly hierarchical in it's funding mechanisms, placing bigger bets on bigger projects that reflect the perspective of older scientists and the status quo. This pulls funding away from up and coming scientists with new ideas they'd like to try out. Classic increase of risk aversion.

And note, too, that the rule change made decades ago in the US, banning universities from imposing a mandatory retirement age on faculty members has had a devastating impact on the development of younger scholars and the funding of new ideas, including my own field. This is in stark contrast to places like South Korea, where mandatory retirement at 65 years for faculty at state universities has kept the pipeline of s…

A significant part of the problem lies in the issues presented by you and the parent comment.

"Science advances one funeral at a time". Make this premise obsolete and we will have a massive roi in science, probably keeping expenditure within the same order of magnitude. I am not speculating, I am truly convinced of it.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#143

Post by moralestapia »

alicemaz wrote: post #75
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…

the way my and my partners look at this is an infrastructure problem. our hope anyway is we can build tools and methods (better mathematical modeling, better bioinformatics software, faster/more accurate sequencing, eventually standardized gear for continuous process chemistry) that can serve startups of a bioengineering bent while also making it more practical for independent researchers to work outside academia. th…

Hello Alice, off-topic but it's great to see you here.

I keep a binder at my desk with printed articles from the web that I find interesting enough to want to keep forever (and give to my children one day). In there is your take on 'playing to win' on the minecraft economy. Thanks for that.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#144

Post by novok »

marcosdumay wrote: post #113
novok wrote: post #18

It's interesting that many of his date coincide with the WTF happened in 1971 website: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Wait, despite the perfect timing for a real cause that page is really trying to attribute it to monetary policy?

That is their take, but you gotta admit, something happened in the early 1970s.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#145

Post by whatshisface »

noetic_techy wrote: post #131
rschneid wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a mistake to assume that technology advancements will come in great leaps and bounds since the day of the wright brothers are over... we've been out of our atmosphere and to the bottom of the sea and made nukes++ and transistors at nm levels. Humanity has been so experienced in the domain of physics for so long that there is no low-hanging fruit left within the periodic table. The physical world has limi…

As someone with a physics major I largely agree with that point to an extent. I do not at all think we have reached the bottom of physics rabbit hole personally even though it feels that way, but I dont see us making any major leaps anytime soon without a totally new approach. String theory is stagnant and we need to dump it. QED and the link to gravity is still very much a mystery so we have yet to really unlock the…

Here's one to add to the list: happiness. Psychology and sociology, developed to the point where we understand how to have happy people and good communities. Somehow this sounds even farther off than warp drives...

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#146

Post by UncleMeat »

whb07 wrote: post #116
cygx wrote: post #112

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). 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?

What choice would you have? If there were no regulations, businesses could lie on packaging. You wouldn’t have the information to make informed choices.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#147

Post by [deleted] »

dustingetz wrote: post #139
noetic_techy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Eric Weinstein would agree with you on this point. You should really listen to his podcast with Peter Thiel where they talk about similar interests disrupting advancement (The Portal - Episode 1). I don't buy the argument that the whole system is therefore useless and corrupt, but that it very much needs intervention to keep this sort of regulatory capture from occurring.

FAAMG is like 20% of the GDP of the USA, the state can't intervene with itself

[deleted]

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#148

Post by Balgair »

baddox wrote: post #62
seibelj wrote: post #4

Thiel is interesting to me because he is so different than others in the SV bubble. Whether you agree with him or think he is the devil, at least he has independent views. I find a lot of people don’t think for themselves anymore.

What strikes you as different about him? I can’t really articulate why exactly, but to me he’s right up there on the list of archetypical SV personalities.

Well, the blood thing comes to mind.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#149

Post by Balgair »

First, Wow, this is going to take some time to chew through.

On deregulation: I totally disagree. I think he has the cart before the horse. To me, it's under regulation. $1.3B per new drug is a bargin. Look at exercise machine infomercials, that's what the drug environment looks like, at best, without regulation. To have a drug checked over, tip to tail, pregnant or not, old or young, etc., costs a lot of money. Not centralizing this process would be fantastically more expensive and error prone.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#150

Post by joshuamorton »

bezmenov wrote: post #138
joshuamorton wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compared to making an effort to hold the typical views? How can it not imply that? I'm not sure what you mean. Can someone who thinks for themself arrive at "typical views"? If yes, then thinking for yourself does not imply anything about the views one holds. To look at the other side: do you believe that a q-anon conspiracy theorist "thinks for themselves", or do they just buy into a non-mainstream, but still comp…

> Can someone who thinks for themself arrive at "typical views"? If yes, then thinking for yourself does not imply anything about the views one holds. Can someone flipping a non-biased coin 50 times have heads come up every flip? Yes. While theoretically possible, in reality it’s almost certainly a weighted coin.

Of course it's a weighted coin! Mainstream ideas are usually (not always, but usually) more correct than a randomly chosen alternative.

Mainstream ideas are often weighted by such things as "scientific consensus", "observation", and "evidence". That doesn't make someone who holds many of them suspicious.

Again, not always, but usually, the mainstream ideas got to be mainstream by being better than all the ideas that came before. It's certainly somewhat conservative to hold only mainstream ideas, but on the whole I'd expect someone who only held mainstream ideas to be more correct than someone who only held non-mainstream ideas.

Like, are you going to sit here and tell me that most of your views aren't mainstream?

Post reply on HN