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

151–160 of 185 posts

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#151

Post by dgut »

biomcgary wrote: post #56
dgut wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please explain a bit further what you mean by politics of science and how it's agains't actually doing science?

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.

Thanks for explaining. alicemaz above gave further details.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#152

Post by AlexandrB »

whb07 wrote: post #111
mjlawson wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd love to see the STEM practitioners who post here developing code in a way where you can only add a line if you remove two others (dependencies included). Otherwise, this just sounds like "do as I say, not as I do".

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#153

Post by AlexandrB »

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.

Don't worry, I think for myself. Just like everybody else on HN.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#154

Post by AlexandrB »

1996 wrote: post #102
kennywinker wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a good gambler does not make you a good person. Warren Buffet has insight on what it's like to be rich, and insights on how to win at capitalism. That does not qualify him to speak about progress in general. Peter Thiel may be good at reading what trends will make him money, but I don't believe that makes him qualified to say what would make the world better (i.e. progress).

If you agree with the premise that people will spend money for what will make them better off instead of worse (following their own judgements criteria, which can't be dismissed, as flawed as they may be, this is the principle behind democracy), then getting rich by winning at capitalism means this person aggregated the population preferences better than other persons. This means they became rich as a consequence of…

[flagged]

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#155

Post by apsec112 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #146
whb07 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could just have a general law banning fraud, rather than regulating every product individually. That's how it was done before the early 20th century.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#156

Post by edanm »

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

Where did you get that idea? FAANG companies are valued at ~5 trillion USD (rough estimate). The US's GDP is 20 trillion USD. But the GDP is measured annually! The US has a GDP that's 4 times the value of the FAANG companies every year.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#157

Post by edanm »

baxtr wrote: post #86
peacefulhat wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he's that different beyond partisanship. Especially in the YC ecosystem with peers like Balaji Srinivasan. A lot of SV people want to "disrupt" basic foundations of our government like the education system.

I wonder how many people realize that disrupt literally means to break something.

That's really not what people are talking about when they talk about disruption. Granted, most people don't really know the theories well, but the disruption thesis is an actual set of theories put forward by an actual business academic, which are concrete and measurable, to explain certain business processes.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#158

Post by cygx »

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…

we have yet to really unlock the quantum-gravity world IMO

Though it is questionable how much a theory of quantum gravity would affect every-day life. Physics hasn't made much progress on that front precisely because it's far removed from the human scale.

I think we still have some tricks up our sleeve for "conventional" technology:

- Space Elevators might never be built

- a warp drive will almost certainly never be built

- Fusion reactors are likely within reach, could potentially even have been achieved already but for ecomomic reasons and policy decisions, though I'm not sure how much of a game changer they would actually be

- AI Humanoid Servants (and related breakthroughs, eg brain simulation: forget warp drives, think about the ability to 'fork' a person, and have that version of yourself embark on a centuries-long journey across the stars aboard conventional space ships), I'm with you

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#159

Post by mercer »

whb07 wrote: post #128
mjlawson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're not acting in good faith here, but I'll bite. I consider it not worth my time to have to be an expert in all things in order to live my daily life. I consider the few overburdensome regulations that occur within a system designed to both protect my health and preserve my time to be a very worthy tradeoff.

I agree with what you’re saying. But you’re proposing the same argument of “well how do you know the dealer didn’t sprinkle another drug on your weed?” What makes you think that the toothpaste company wants to use expensive radioactive materials on your plain toothpaste and not charge you for it?

> I agree with what you’re saying. But you’re proposing the same argument of “well how do you know the dealer didn’t sprinkle another drug on your weed?”

Uh, that's an excellent argument for legalizing and regulating weed. Or am I missing your point?

> What makes you think that the toothpaste company wants to use expensive radioactive materials on your plain toothpaste and not charge you for it?

I'll sell my radioactive toothpaste at a slight loss, capture the market, and then raise prices? Just off the top of my head. Or sell my radioactive stuff and also invest in companies that treat cancer.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#160

Post by echaozh »

mercer wrote: post #159
whb07 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you’re saying. But you’re proposing the same argument of “well how do you know the dealer didn’t sprinkle another drug on your weed?” What makes you think that the toothpaste company wants to use expensive radioactive materials on your plain toothpaste and not charge you for it?

> I agree with what you’re saying. But you’re proposing the same argument of “well how do you know the dealer didn’t sprinkle another drug on your weed?” Uh, that's an excellent argument for legalizing and regulating weed. Or am I missing your point? > What makes you think that the toothpaste company wants to use expensive radioactive materials on your plain toothpaste and not charge you for it? I'll sell my radioact…

Or just simply sell radioactive toothpaste and advertise it as helping your health. People may fall for that. People even drank disinfectant. Without regulation, there will always people buying your fancy stuff, at a premium even.
Post reply on HN