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

361–370 of 452 posts

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

#361

Post by yesenadam »

XorNot wrote: post #282
yesenadam wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That page says "Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the MAD doctrine continues to be applied." I get the feeling that's not generally known. Isn't that kind of extremely weird? I've never seen discussion of it on HN, for example, or maybe what to do about the prospect of living indefinitely under the threat of MAD. With more countries with nuclear weapons all the time. Well, you read here about people not…

I'd say it's generally known - everyone is aware of nukes and what nukes can do. The difference is they're considered much more of a known quantity these days: you can't use them, you don't use them, and you also can't fight a direct war with any country which has them. The idea of the "mad Russians" launching against the US has worn out, but watch what happens when you talk about Iran or North Korea having them. Wha…

That MAD continues didn't seem that known on HN earlier today. (I didn't know it either.) When I wrote the GP comment, it had half a dozen sibling comments from different people, now all deleted, talking about MAD in the past tense, as a crazy thing that was believed in long ago.

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

#363

Post by prepend »

adamcstephens wrote: post #346
prepend wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we use the 7.50 mark the number of people in poverty has increased dramatically since the 80s. This seems surprising to me. What do you think is the best source for me to learn about this metric? I found a lot of info on the methodology behind $1.9/day [0] but couldn’t find much by looking for the $7.50/day mark and how it has changed over time. I found this guardian article referencing $7.4/day [1] but the link…

https://www.jasonhickel.org/the-divide The author addresses this question, along with how the UN has continually shifted the goal posts to reinforce the narrative that poverty has been reduced.

Thanks for replying, I’ll check out this book and learn about how it’s measuring poverty. The concept seems about inequality though, that is different (although important) than poverty.

This quote mixes the two concepts “ Since 1960, the income gap between the North and South has roughly tripled in size. Today 4.3 billion people, 60 per cent of the world's population, live on less than $5 per day.” and doesn’t provide context on whether the percent of the worlds population living in less than $5/day is better or worse than in 1960.

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

#364

Post by adamcstephens »

prepend wrote: post #363
adamcstephens wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.jasonhickel.org/the-divide The author addresses this question, along with how the UN has continually shifted the goal posts to reinforce the narrative that poverty has been reduced.

Thanks for replying, I’ll check out this book and learn about how it’s measuring poverty. The concept seems about inequality though, that is different (although important) than poverty. This quote mixes the two concepts “ Since 1960, the income gap between the North and South has roughly tripled in size. Today 4.3 billion people, 60 per cent of the world's population, live on less than $5 per day.” and doesn’t provid…

Right, the book overall is about global inequality, but he definitely addresses the defined poverty thresholds. These thresholds are used by the wealthier countries to claim an improvement in people’s lives, while they’re gaming the numbers to show a decrease in poverty.

Trying to boil down a very diverse global population, which may or may not even be paid, into a single $/day seems a bit ridiculous to me personally.

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

#365

Post by yesenadam »

graeme wrote: post #307
jessaustin wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need the other 18,000 bombs? Every bomb must be purchased from the armaments manufacturers who actually control our society. The same who originally bamboozled Truman into damning our species. Your question is equivalent to "why do they want more money?"

Any money is in selling bombs that are used , so you can sell more. Not much money in nukes, and you can very by stock exchange listings. This kind of conspiracy thinking utterly ignores the horrifying logic of MAD. Read a bit about Bernard Brodie, pre-eminent strategist, he laid it all out for why deterrence was sadly the only way to go and that we must live in a state of mutually assured destruction. https://en.m.w…

> Any money is in selling bombs that are used, so you can sell more. Not much money in nukes

World nuclear arms spending hit $73bn last year – half of it by US.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/nuclear-weapon...

"The U.S. government is now estimated to have 6,800 nuclear weapons at its disposal, but America hasn’t actually built a new warhead or bomb since the 1990s. “It has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime,”...The B61-12 atomic bombs, for instance, are to undergo a life-extension program that will cost roughly $9.5 billion. There are 400 to 500 of these bombs... which means refurbishing one will cost about $20 million.

W-80 warheads, another type being refurbished, are estimated to cost $75 million each ... the total cost of the W-80 life extension plan will be $7.3 billion to $9.9 billion over 17 years."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/heres-how-much-a-nuclear-wea...

Sounds like serious money to me. More details about which companies are making the most money and how:

http://www.nuclearweaponsmoney.org/corporations/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/01/02/20-companies...

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

#366

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

biztos wrote: post #342
jboynyc wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a recent book about this, subtitled "The Luddites Are Right About Why You Hate Your Job": https://www.versobooks.com/books/3184-breaking-things-at-wor... > In the nineteenth century, English textile workers responded to the introduction of new technologies on the factory floor by smashing them to bits. For years the Luddites roamed the English countryside, practicing drills and manoeuvres that they would late…

I frankly expect "smashing them to bits" (or setting them on fire) to be the response in France when self-driving cargo trucks are introduced. In America and a lot of other rich countries I can imagine a large workforce just sort of slowly dissipating as they are made redundant by the unstoppable force of technology, but at least a few places may strongly disagree about the unstoppability, and put it to the test.

Indeed, that is why I figured (on a trip to the country a few years ago) why self-service supermarkets checkouts haven't been rolled out in South Africa. That is a country of very high unemployment, so perhaps one could expect violence if overt technology to save labour costs were introduced.

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

#367

Post by dimitrios1 »

darkerside wrote: post #158
dimitrios1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Based on what you've said, I get the same impression. If you want to connect with somebody, don't talk. Listen. Even if you "know" you're right. As stubborn as you think those people are, they have a good case for arguing that you are just as stubborn if not more so.

Do you hang out with people who just talk all day without a prompt? How do you listen if you don't first ask?

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

#368

Post by tgv »

tdudzik wrote: post #333

No, it hasn't. I tended to think that the Internet, or more specifically social media, brought more harm than good to the world and society. But now I don't think it's true. Tech connects people, it shows us that people on the other side of the world are actually the same like us, it gives us instant access to almost all existing information and knowledge, it easily solves problems that were almost unsolvable before…

> it shows us that people on the other side of the world are actually the same like us

Newspapers and TV showed that message before. That did seem to go well. And shutting down parler and gab also seemed to work. Perhaps connectivity is not for the best in all cases.

> it easily solves problems that were almost unsolvable before

I don't think internet has solved that many problems that were almost unsolvable before 2000.

> Tech have some problems but still, it's amazing.

The atomic bomb is also amazing, but it's a menace anyway. Tech needs control. A lot of it.

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

#369

Post by chasd00 »

tremon wrote: post #273
dingaling wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you need the other 18,000 bombs? Second-wave strategic targets ( surviving silos, airfields, ports and C3 facilities ) Tactical targets ( tank formations , POL depots, troop assembly areas, aviation FOBs ) Naval targets ( submarines, surface vessels, sonar installations ) Mobility targets ( bridges, valleys, tunnels ) Plus accounting for failed weapons, losses en route, missed targets...

If you have made so many enemies that you need 18,000 nuclear bombs to feel safe, I question your attitude to life.

i don't see any real reasons, i bet lunch the main idea was to be able to credibly publish a bar graph showing your count larger than that of your enemies.

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

#370

Post by chasd00 »

XorNot wrote: post #282
yesenadam wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That page says "Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the MAD doctrine continues to be applied." I get the feeling that's not generally known. Isn't that kind of extremely weird? I've never seen discussion of it on HN, for example, or maybe what to do about the prospect of living indefinitely under the threat of MAD. With more countries with nuclear weapons all the time. Well, you read here about people not…

I'd say it's generally known - everyone is aware of nukes and what nukes can do. The difference is they're considered much more of a known quantity these days: you can't use them, you don't use them, and you also can't fight a direct war with any country which has them. The idea of the "mad Russians" launching against the US has worn out, but watch what happens when you talk about Iran or North Korea having them. Wha…

the problem with MAD is it falls apart when you cross religious extremism with nuclear weapons. It's not rational to douse school girls in acid on their way to school but religious extremism turns it into reality.
Post reply on HN