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

A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 452 posts

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#121

Post by Bakary »

tjr225 wrote: post #108
SideQuark wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For most people the economy is not working for them. For most people in the world, they are quite a bit richer than their ancestors, even by 50 years ago. In fact, the number pulled from poverty over the past 50 years is astounding. Even in rich places like the US, the poor today are vastly richer than 50 years ago. Median wages are at all time highs as well. So how do you conclude "for most people" (which I take to…

Wtf? Who cares what the median wage is? People can’t afford health care or housing. Have you been outside in any major city recently? There is a homeless crisis that is truly shocking going on around all of us.

The median wage gives you a picture that is closer to the real value than just anecdotes. For most people on Earth, there has been a great increase in living standards. It just so happens that much of it took place outside of the West.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#122

Post by sillysaurusx »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #102
sillysaurusx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understand that this is the norm. And understand that when you present differing opinions without being asked, you’re acting selfishly — you’re not doing it because you care about them, you’re doing it for yourself. Ultimately it depends what you want out of your personal relationships. I’ve found people who are willing to talk. But I haven’t found people who genuinely change their mind about deeply held beliefs with…

That's not what I am saying at all. I mean for the sake of conversation and discussion, asking to even explain a belief, for understanding. Sometimes even the question is seemed as a threat. I didn't say I want to change anyone's mind. Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. I see what you are saying, but you jumped the gun a little bit.

Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane.

Are you sure?

I don’t know. It helped me to view it as “yes, this is selfish. They’re more important to me than the topic.”

The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it?

Another way to phrase it: why care so much what they think? If they don’t explain themselves, then they probably don’t care whether you agree.

To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.)

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#124

Post by philipps »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #112
giantg2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that work, like how does the connection get made and identity discovered? Generally I feel the echo chamber effect would be more common.

One consumes information online, that information causes introspection and a better perspective of one's identity. Usually it's not one specific event but a bombardment of information that over time, hopefully gives someone more perspective and their place in the world. On the other hand, it closes some people off and causes the echo chamber. Cuts both ways.

Can you share some articles or studies that demonstrate the increasing openness? (I hope it’s true that it cuts both ways, but would like to see more data/research).

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#125

Post by [deleted] »

glenstein wrote: post #37

A comment I made on this when it was posted a few days ago: I am surprised that this was regarded as a close decision. I guess a lot depends on wording, but when one person is predicting the dollar will be worthless, and the person in the role of judge claims that given global economic uncertainty, it's a "close" question, I wonder if they're just saying that to be diplomatic. Obviously there's a lot of uncertainty,…

[deleted]

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#126

Post by blt »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
benrbray wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure exactly what you're hinting at, but I think you should take a cold, hard look at yourself and the expectations you place on your potential partners. Do you imagine them as actual human beings with their own thoughts, aspirations, preferences, goals? What does such a person have to gain (emotionally / socially) by choosing YOU in particular for a partner? In all relationships, romantic or not, personality…

Your advice on how to find a partner is "join hobby groups, but not with the intention of finding a partner"?

I think the advice is more like "build a circle of good, like-minded friends." A hobby group can help with that. There is no quick fix.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#127

Post by saghm »

lukedoolittle wrote: post #98
glenstein wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those weren't the words of the bet, Yes, they were the words of the bet. https://www.wired.com/1995/06/saleskelly/

I don't know if this changes anything but I think the actual bet is described by the line >I bet you US$1,000 that in the year 2020, we're not even close to the kind of disaster you describe—a convergence of three disasters: global currency collapse, significant warfare between rich and poor, and environmental disasters of some significant size. We won't even be close. I'll bet on my optimism. It seems like in the ac…

> I bet you US$1,000 that in the year 2020, we're not even close to...a global currency collapse

Why would anyone take this bet? If you're right, then $1000 USD probably won't be worth very much after the "global currency collapse", so you'd basically be saying "I'll give you $1000 in 2020 if it's worth anything"

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#128

Post by Bakary »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #63
wait_a_minute wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be the case that socio-economic issues have worsened those things, not technology. And that we are not fully leveraging technology in order to improve lives.

I don't know if thats alway the case. People used to have liaisons, read books, play music together, go to church, play card games, garden, ride horses, and so on. Often surrounded by friend and family. Just seems like the quality of the average moment was better back then. The experience more authentic and often more social and more dangerous. For example if you liked to go out and play poker in a local bar in the 1…

There are plenty of people having real experiences today. In absolute numbers, there are probably more of them than in the period you describe, since the population has ballooned. The life you want is out there.

Plus you are ignoring all the bad parts. Don't want to be a stay at home wife and be bored out of your mind? Too bad. Wrong tone or sexual preference? Whoops. Don't want to get black lung or mind numbing-factory work? Better luck next time.

There is a selection bias at work. Only notable people are portrayed in media, for the most part. But the past is filled with atrociously empty and broken lives.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#129

Post by alvah »

Talanes wrote: post #80
dragonwriter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a native english speaker, "for example" and "that is" code as basically the same style of skip-over phrase: just there to lead into the important part. As a native English speaker, seriously, WTF? “That is” (for which two different latin-derived abbreviations are frequently used in English, i.e. and viz. ) leads into an equivalent alternative to what precedes, while “for example” (for which e.g. is a latin-deriv…

Where does using one over the other cause an actual change in information though? Not just sticking out as the wrong one if you know the proper distinction, but actually conveying different information? The comparison that follows is the important part, the abbreviation is a part of grammatical dressing that provides some flow and framing.

Always, if used correctly. i.e. = in other words, e.g. = for example. Surely, as a native English speaker, you can see the huge difference? One is definitive, the other is presenting one or more examples.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#130

Post by blt »

cryptica wrote: post #42
benrbray wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure exactly what you're hinting at, but I think you should take a cold, hard look at yourself and the expectations you place on your potential partners. Do you imagine them as actual human beings with their own thoughts, aspirations, preferences, goals? What does such a person have to gain (emotionally / socially) by choosing YOU in particular for a partner? In all relationships, romantic or not, personality…

This is complete BS. In our unequal society, some people have 100s of potential partners waiting in line for them while for others, they will never get a single chance in their entire lifetimes. Same with career opportunities. Either you're rich and have more opportunities every single day than you can possibly fathom or you don't have a single good opportunity in your entire lifetime. What's more tragic about it is…

Your statements are extreme. There may be some subcultures and bits of society that behave like this, but it is far from universal. Please take a break from your current forums/podcasts/youtube/etc.
Post reply on HN