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

Interview with Paul Graham

pullrequest.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#101

Post by dustingetz »

samatman wrote: post #36

> But a few years after it's over, we'll be acting as if [COVID] never happened. We're good at that. I fear this prediction won't come true. There's a great risk that 'health theatre' will join security theatre as a durable if not permanent part of our existence. That years from now, we'll be getting temperatures checked, schools will be shutting down for worse-than-usual influenzas, and so on. I still can't bring an…

inexploitability, not risk aversion. Human systems behave in ways that are inexploitable, otherwise they are exploited.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#102

Post by dhbradshaw »

WalterBright wrote: post #50
samatman wrote: post #36

> But a few years after it's over, we'll be acting as if [COVID] never happened. We're good at that. I fear this prediction won't come true. There's a great risk that 'health theatre' will join security theatre as a durable if not permanent part of our existence. That years from now, we'll be getting temperatures checked, schools will be shutting down for worse-than-usual influenzas, and so on. I still can't bring an…

> Something made our society irrationally risk-averse Our brains are finely tuned to detect danger. If there isn't any danger, danger will be exaggerated or simply invented. Our society has been very successful at eliminating all sorts of dangers, hence the irrational view of the remaining risk today.

I think this is insightful.

Interestingly, in an immunology class I just took, the instructor suggested that allergies come from our immune system doing the same thing. If the environment is too sterile, it will come up with things to worry about even if the danger isn't really there.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#103

Post by RandoHolmes »

bitexploder wrote: post #81
marcell wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a long time ago, but when PG first started writing, nerds into programming were a marginal group, not rulers of the tech world with great influence. His writing resonated with that group at a time when they didn’t seem influential or especially important in society.

It’s weird. Been programming and in tech since 97. I never felt marginalized, but I didn’t care. I was doing STUFF in tech, always learning. My young mind was aflame. I felt like I was changing the world in the dot com boom/bust. Then I grew up and so did tech apparently.

The word marginalized gets thrown around too much, it's the wrong word to use.

Unpopular would be the better word. We were nerds. Revenge of the Nerds was about people like us: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088000/

I know that when I came across an article where Wil Wheaton was complaining about CUPS and how bad printer drivers were in linux I was tickled pink.

Over time, as society became more aware of the value this industry brings, it's brought it more mainstream and also brought a lot more people into it (different types of people). But at the time I think the other posters assessment was spot on.

Like you, I never cared either, but I also think what they said is true.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#104

Post by ABCLAW »

gonehome wrote: post #35
marcinzm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is disincentivizing the accumulation of massive wealth in a small subset of the population bad for society? What is the advantage to society of an individual accumulating tens of billions of dollars worth of wealth?

It's dis-incentivizing wealth creation in general and taking ownership away from people that build companies. There's a compelling argument that growth (that accounts for human rights and protecting the environment) is the best way to help the most people the fastest: https://press.stripe.com/#stubborn-attachments . Policy that dis-incentivizes wealth creation creates perverse incentives that limit growth. We're bett…

>Wealth creation isn't zero-sum, just because someone builds a business and creates wealth doesn't mean they're taking it from others. We want a society where people are incentivized to create and grow wealth as much as they can (within bounds for environment protection and human rights), not just to some arbitrary cap before it gets taken by the government.

You're right that wealth creation isn't zero sum, but studies make this point a bit more nuanced than your argument would suggest.

Historical analysis of growth appears to indicate that equality and growth in America have been largely correlated on a decade by decade basis until the last 20-30 years. It was only in the most recent cycle of international growth that this link appears to have been broken.

So it's not simple enough to pretend that pro-wealth and pro-growth policies are one and the same; the opposite appears to have been the case until very recently.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#105

Post by take_a_breath »

hkai wrote: post #80
jkubicek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any chance at all this is going to happen. Security theater in airports is perpetuated by an agency that depends on fear to secure its funding and a government that depends on us fighting the "bad guys" (even if they aren't any close to as dangerous as they want us to think). COVID fear isn't being perpetuated by any government agencies at the national level. If anything, the federal government…

The federal government doesn't promote the covid fear only because of which party is in power right now. One of the presidential candidates promises a nationwide mask mandate, and, judging from the actions of authorities in NYC or other places, there will be other severe restrictions on freedom of business, assembly and travel. So yes, I also tend to agree that many people will continue supporting the health theater…

This isn’t proof that those measures will stay in place after the pandemic subsides, as they have for travel. Since you brought up political parties, it’s worth noting that the party who lead that round of fear is the one in power.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#106

Post by adventured »

hkai wrote: post #80
jkubicek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any chance at all this is going to happen. Security theater in airports is perpetuated by an agency that depends on fear to secure its funding and a government that depends on us fighting the "bad guys" (even if they aren't any close to as dangerous as they want us to think). COVID fear isn't being perpetuated by any government agencies at the national level. If anything, the federal government…

The federal government doesn't promote the covid fear only because of which party is in power right now. One of the presidential candidates promises a nationwide mask mandate, and, judging from the actions of authorities in NYC or other places, there will be other severe restrictions on freedom of business, assembly and travel. So yes, I also tend to agree that many people will continue supporting the health theater…

> One of the presidential candidates promises a nationwide mask mandate

Fearing polls, Biden has run away from his position (made multiple times on record) of a national mask requirement. The other day he lied and said he never said it in the first place, claimed he's a constitutionalist and wouldn't seek a mask requirement because of that. This was all on video. So who knows what to believe from these clowns.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#107

Post by mastazi »

whitepoplar wrote: post #63
Abhinav2000 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly it. Everybody would dream to have his life and his blogs do give a vivid imagery that makes you feel good and believe you can do the same (plus with YC actually giving some hope). But I’ve learnt a lot more from others, who are not nearly as successful.

Who are some of the other people you've learned a great deal from? I'm curious!

I'm not parent but - it might be people that are close to them IRL and not well known online. Personally, it was like that for me. However unlike parent, I also feel like I get a lot of value from reading PG

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#108

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

hkai wrote: post #80
jkubicek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any chance at all this is going to happen. Security theater in airports is perpetuated by an agency that depends on fear to secure its funding and a government that depends on us fighting the "bad guys" (even if they aren't any close to as dangerous as they want us to think). COVID fear isn't being perpetuated by any government agencies at the national level. If anything, the federal government…

The federal government doesn't promote the covid fear only because of which party is in power right now. One of the presidential candidates promises a nationwide mask mandate, and, judging from the actions of authorities in NYC or other places, there will be other severe restrictions on freedom of business, assembly and travel. So yes, I also tend to agree that many people will continue supporting the health theater…

I fail to see how this is "health theater", especially mask mandates, which show high effectiveness and relatively low imposition on personal freedoms, considering the pandemic is currently ongoing.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#109

Post by XorNot »

vlunkr wrote: post #88
samatman wrote: post #36

> But a few years after it's over, we'll be acting as if [COVID] never happened. We're good at that. I fear this prediction won't come true. There's a great risk that 'health theatre' will join security theatre as a durable if not permanent part of our existence. That years from now, we'll be getting temperatures checked, schools will be shutting down for worse-than-usual influenzas, and so on. I still can't bring an…

On the other hand wouldn't it be good for some of the extra hygiene to stick around? Allowing kids to do online school when they're sick rather than prioritizing in-person attendance is a great step forward IMO. Not only because schools spread illness quickly, but because it's a horrible experience to be sick at school. Same goes for work.

Not getting sick at all this year has been an ironic benefit of measures to deal with the pandemic.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#110

Post by wombatmobile »

> 2. What's the future of what we now call journalism? Is it all Substack (a YC company)? Can we run the global-scale world with that model?

I'm new to HN and was interested to read PG's answer, because I like the civility and on-pointedness of HN, which I think is a result of its rules of engagement. So, first I looked at Substack, which I hadn't heard of before.

PG's answer suggests he values journalism, but I was surprised that Substack doesn't address the main problem of journalism, which is not a lack of "individual domain experts" - it's a lack of a viable business model to support people who practice journalism.

Advertising is what used to pay for journalism when journalism was published on newsprint. Since advertising went to online, journalism has been decoupled from the business model. Now less than half the number of journalists are employed in USA and Australia than at the peak, less than 20 years ago.

Can anyone point me towards attempts to find a new business model to sustain journalism?

Post reply on HN