Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

docs.google.com

171–180 of 185 posts

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#171
post #25

The future is coming. In China. Energy: - Million-volt DC power transmission over thousands of kilometers is routine. - Solar panels get cheaper every year. - 46 nuclear reactors in operation, 11 under construction. Transportation: - 35,000km of high speed rail. - Several major cities, including Shenzhen (16 million people), use all electric taxis and buses now. - 600km/hr maglev train in test. Medicine: - First coro…

China is as "mildly oppressive" just as much as a bullet to the head is "mildly inconvenient".

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At one point Thiel is quoted with "The public transportation systems don’t work." Which is a bold and false statement, because public transportation can work extremely well. I mean, it doesn’t work for him, since he doesn’t need it.. As someone without a car or even a license, who relies on public transport (albeit in Europe), I think this highlights the issues I have with economic inequality... Interests diverging…

A lot of what Thiel writes is from a US centric viewpoint, which is fine, he's an American living in America. And in the biggest US cities public transport doesn't work all that well.

He’s an extremely rich American that can navigate both government contracts to implement surveillance of people less fortunate than him (palantir) and the justice system to shut down press (gawker). He doesn’t need democracy, he doesn’t care for poorer people’s values, opinions or input, he prefers his version of “freedom” because he can buy whatever he needs.

Fuck everyone else, amirite? (/s)

Edit: when I was in the US I did use public transport, and it was fine, less convenient than uber, but fine. (This is in the context of cities and suburbs, even in europe people who live in rural areas are obviously less served by public transport).

(And yes public transport in San Francisco did kinda suck. But so did old-school taxis)

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#173
post #102

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…

So explain:

1. The cutting of research into a vaccine for the original sars coronavirus. I think a lot of us would be happier if we had that basic research done right now. Clear failure of market-based solutions / forward thinking. Same vein: lack of real change on global warming.

2. Social media companies optimizing their algorithms to make people unhappy, so they spend more time on the site.

Basically, no I do not accept your original premise.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a distinction here between law and regulation. Even hard core libertarians don't think there should be no laws. That's a straw man. They tend to believe governments should vigorously enforce contracts, trademarks, punish fraud and provide other tools that make commerce easy. In other words that they give people the tools to keep each other honest, but don't try to directly mandate every detail of every produc…

The word regulation tends to be used to mean rather modern and very sector-specific rules

That's not really a modern thing. For example, the reason why Lange Messer (a type of medieval sword, which are nominally "long knives") exist is because sword production was regulated.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> This is very visible when Thiel dismisses incremental progress with wind turbines and photovoltaic cells. I think you've missed his point which he lays out in the opener. If you've listened to him speak on podcasts about this topic (I recommend episode 1 of The Portal with Eric Weinstein) you will realize that his ENTIRE point is that incremental progress is simply refinement of things we already have since the 60…

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…

I am not sure that the "days of the Wright Brothers are over." Above all else they were experimenters who gathered data on aerodynamic properties and performance of different wing and control surfaces. I think there is much undiscovered in biology at many levels--cellular, organ system, and organism. I think may see the equivalent of an industrial revolution (a quantum step in the quality of life) flowing from breakthroughs in biology.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

hi! thanks for the kind words aha, always nice to hear people appreciate what I put out. trying to get a bit better than my current average of one post per year lol

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of what Thiel writes is from a US centric viewpoint, which is fine, he's an American living in America. And in the biggest US cities public transport doesn't work all that well.

He’s an extremely rich American that can navigate both government contracts to implement surveillance of people less fortunate than him (palantir) and the justice system to shut down press (gawker). He doesn’t need democracy, he doesn’t care for poorer people’s values, opinions or input, he prefers his version of “freedom” because he can buy whatever he needs. Fuck everyone else, amirite? (/s) Edit: when I was in the…

From what I've heard him say, he seems sympathetic to the plight of "ordinary" Americans - i.e., middle/lower-class types who voted for Trump. They're all much less fortunate than him.

I fully understand that people will find his endorsement of Trump repugnant, and look at past statements on gender and rumours of his past-stated positions on race, and find him deeply problematic. And some will be skeptical that he cares sufficiently for all those less fortunate. I have no need to argue the toss on those matters.

But he does earnestly seem to care about the wellbeing of many less-fortunate Americans, and has spoken often of his wish to see a return to the more optimistic days of the 1960s, where shows like The Jetsons portrayed a vision of the future that ordinary people found inspiring. [1]

But even if someone is a completely un-compassionate, self-interested arch-capitalist, it's still in their interests for most people in society to do be doing OK, as it means more people with money to buy products from the companies you invest in, and a more orderly society, which makes it easier to become/remain rich.

As for public transport, he was living in San Francisco when he said that.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-ta...

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#178
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So explain: 1. The cutting of research into a vaccine for the original sars coronavirus. I think a lot of us would be happier if we had that basic research done right now. Clear failure of market-based solutions / forward thinking. Same vein: lack of real change on global warming. 2. Social media companies optimizing their algorithms to make people unhappy, so they spend more time on the site. Basically, no I do not…

But Peter Thiel specifically did none of these things. He initially got rich via PayPal, which simplified safe online payments, which is clearly something people wanted at that time and not particularly immoral. You might say it was progress.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#179
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So explain: 1. The cutting of research into a vaccine for the original sars coronavirus. I think a lot of us would be happier if we had that basic research done right now. Clear failure of market-based solutions / forward thinking. Same vein: lack of real change on global warming. 2. Social media companies optimizing their algorithms to make people unhappy, so they spend more time on the site. Basically, no I do not…

For 1: most people do not care about diseases that do not matter. Most people consider the common cold normal and acceptable. I was very sad such research never went very far, for I believe viruses are way more deadly that we think: as we know now that the EBV can cause many bad things long term, there is no reason to think other viruses can do the same. The fact that these 2 separate diseases are called the "kissing disease" (EBV) and the "common cold" (coronaviruses) gives a fake sense of safety. SARS was the perfect scare to get research started!

HOWEVER, most people do not care about viruses, and problems in general besides imminent danger. If you too care, realize we are in the minority. Before covid19, most people though the wearing of masks when one has a cold in asia was overkill. Even now, in the midst of a pandemic, the wearing of masks is a hard sell. I fully expect all basic precaution like transparent plastic sheets in front of the checkout to be gone as soon as the pandemic is over, because we are in the minority.

For most people, the experience of directly seeing the person doing their checkout is preferable to the alternatives. It makes them happier. It is not hard to expand that to other issues: even for a virus like Ebola, research doesn't get much money. Clearly, it means that at the population level, we just don't care.

2. Have you noticed how people play various games like Zynga, which accomplishes nothing? Just like videogames in general: unless you are being paid for playing (professional player), you are getting nothing out of it, except maybe better reflexes - but you could achieve the same result in much less time. Social networks are the same. What am I accomplishing here? Nothing. You could even say, as I often talk to people who reject my premises, HN makes me unhappy. Yet I post here?

So you must consider that what we consider make people, you or me unhappy is an oversimplification. We must gain something else out of this - maybe a dopamine hit?

Social networks are all in competition with eachother. You will prefer the one that gives you the best overall experience, the largest dopamine hit with the lowest unhappiness.

This social network increase overall happiness. There may be more than one: facebook for regular people, HN for hackers, Twitch for gamers, etc.

It's hard to overcome the fallacy of composition (the tendancy to extrapolate from our own experience to the population level): what makes us happy make make 50% of the people miserable, and vice-versa.

Re: Peter Thiel on Progress and Stagnation

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So explain: 1. The cutting of research into a vaccine for the original sars coronavirus. I think a lot of us would be happier if we had that basic research done right now. Clear failure of market-based solutions / forward thinking. Same vein: lack of real change on global warming. 2. Social media companies optimizing their algorithms to make people unhappy, so they spend more time on the site. Basically, no I do not…

But Peter Thiel specifically did none of these things. He initially got rich via PayPal, which simplified safe online payments, which is clearly something people wanted at that time and not particularly immoral. You might say it was progress.

A decent portion of his wealth came from his early investment in facebook. Literally the second example I gave of capitalism rewarding harm.
Post reply on HN