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

WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 321 posts

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#311

Post by TeMPOraL »

perl4ever wrote: post #307
TeMPOraL wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a specialized version of the question, is it really evil to kill evil people? But it's also a bit off-topic; the more important one is, are only evil people getting killed by drone strikes executed by people who (claim to) try to kill only evil people? The answer to that is a resounding no. We can debate the specifics of this, but it wasn't my point. My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making pe…

>why criticize the case where the similar levels of detachment are making people more likely to do good deeds? Keywords: Bangladesh arsenic UNICEF wells

Am I missing some context here? This keyphrase gives me some articles about how UNICEF is helping mitigate the problem of arsenic in drinking water in Bangladesh. This is good, right? Or are they, or other charitable initiatives, somehow responsible for causing it in the first place?

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#312

Post by xwdv »

mancerayder wrote: post #227
xwdv wrote: post #173

Why doesn't hackernews adopt something or do something like this? Software developers are rolling in money, and it's not that expensive. Guess we're too busy eating the world.

We're too busy spying on the world and selling the data to advertisers. That's essentially what the highest paid developers do, right?

Correct, but that's why we should find some way to offset our unethical activities.

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#313

Post by perl4ever »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #311
perl4ever wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why criticize the case where the similar levels of detachment are making people more likely to do good deeds? Keywords: Bangladesh arsenic UNICEF wells

Am I missing some context here? This keyphrase gives me some articles about how UNICEF is helping mitigate the problem of arsenic in drinking water in Bangladesh. This is good, right? Or are they, or other charitable initiatives, somehow responsible for causing it in the first place?

>are they, or other charitable initiatives, somehow responsible for causing it in the first place

That is how the story goes. Millions of wells were dug via aid that turned out to be contaminated with arsenic then ingested by tens of millions of people. Many of whom suffered over the years thinking they were "cursed".

I don't know how culpable the aid organizations really were, but even if it's just one of those "truthy" things that isn't quite true, it represents what can happen when people are detached from consequences of trying to do good very vividly.

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#314

Post by perl4ever »

franga2000 wrote: post #310
perl4ever wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be a tradeoff between the distance of someone you want to help and effectiveness - how much do you really know about their problems or the solutions you are funding? Have you ever tried to figure out requirements for a project at work that depend on a group of co-workers on another continent in a different culture? There's also so many faraway causes, how do you prioritize? The people I know, and the proble…

The exact opposite argument can also be made here: they weren't remotely funding some specific measure that they think could solve the problem, which admittedly could be distorted by distance. They are funding an organization whose goal is solving that problem and has experts who are close to the issue. It's basically outsourcing.

>It's basically outsourcing

It is basically outsourcing, yes. I'd think on HN of all places people would appreciate how wrong that can go.

I recommend reading the Wikipedia page on Dian Fossey if you haven't.

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#315

Post by Spoiled_toast »

xwdv wrote: post #173

Why doesn't hackernews adopt something or do something like this? Software developers are rolling in money, and it's not that expensive. Guess we're too busy eating the world.

The HR platform is built upon an entirely different ethic. There is no room for this behavior to grow. Thank the one without humour.

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#316

Post by franga2000 »

perl4ever wrote: post #314
franga2000 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact opposite argument can also be made here: they weren't remotely funding some specific measure that they think could solve the problem, which admittedly could be distorted by distance. They are funding an organization whose goal is solving that problem and has experts who are close to the issue. It's basically outsourcing.

>It's basically outsourcing It is basically outsourcing, yes. I'd think on HN of all places people would appreciate how wrong that can go. I recommend reading the Wikipedia page on Dian Fossey if you haven't.

Interesting read, and I definitely wasn't trying to say that outsourcing was great. But if you do your due diligence, your chances of actually fixing the issue you care about are much higher if you pick a reputable organisation to donate to, rather than funding actions directly.

Since philanthropy is usually fueled by emotions, you might be tempted to fuel actions to stop trophy hunting of endangered species, but according to many sources (see the wikipedia page and its references), that might actually be detrimental to the conservation efforts. Similarly, you might fund the planting of trees to restore forests, while those cutting existing forests down with no regard for the environment face no opposition (sound familiar?).

There's a lot of harm possible if you outsource to the wrong people, but if you do your due dilligence, a dedicated group of experts will be able to use your money far more effectively than you could.

As for "fixing the issues close to you" - you need to realise, that people who have money to throw around are rarely close to, let alone experts in, any such issues. They might want to help the homeless, for example, but if they just buy up a bunch of apartments and let them live there, they might not be solving much. Someone working with the homeless on a daily basis would know to put money towards rehabilitation, education and finding them employment first (from what I've heard - I, too, am not an expert).

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#317

Post by perl4ever »

franga2000 wrote: post #316
perl4ever wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's basically outsourcing It is basically outsourcing, yes. I'd think on HN of all places people would appreciate how wrong that can go. I recommend reading the Wikipedia page on Dian Fossey if you haven't.

Interesting read, and I definitely wasn't trying to say that outsourcing was great. But if you do your due diligence, your chances of actually fixing the issue you care about are much higher if you pick a reputable organisation to donate to, rather than funding actions directly. Since philanthropy is usually fueled by emotions, you might be tempted to fuel actions to stop trophy hunting of endangered species, but acc…

>your chances of actually fixing the issue you care about are much higher if you pick a reputable organisation to donate to, rather than funding actions directly

I wasn't questioning the merits of working in groups.

However, the only way to have done "due diligence" practically speaking is to engage with an organization that operates near you and deals with something that you have experienced or known someone who's experienced.

Meeting the people who work for an organization, volunteering your time to work with them, observing what they do in your community, is how you do due diligence.

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#318

Post by cik »

adflux wrote: post #94
cik wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever wonder if we're going about this all wrong. What if the real value was paying poachers to not poach?

Definition of perverse incentive. How do you imagine this to work?

To be honest, I don't. I was more interested in having intelligent conversation around it. I feel (generally) that when people don't have aligned incentives, there can't be aligned outcomes. To me, that means there's a conversation to be had around how do we get groups with differing priorities to have aligned incentives.

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#319

Post by blablabla123 »

rglullis wrote: post #251
blablabla123 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly that. We destroy our tourist destinations, beaches, food sources, areas where to live, landscapes for desktop backgrounds, the air and the water. Lost in useless economic abstractions.

A purely rhetorical, not-implying anything-in-any-way: if you believe people should kill themselves for the sake of other beings, why haven't you?

Sorry, I kind of misread the second sentence of the post above. I thought the whole point is that: why would you destroy your own habitat? That's just so incredibly unreasonable.

Re: WallStreetBets members adopt 3,500 gorillas in six days

#320

Post by hypnotortoise »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #309
capitol_ wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But here you are comparing apple and oranges. The energy one technical component uses versus the energy that all the people that use another technology uses. Bitcoin also have support systems around it, hardware production lines, and a lot of people who use it that you don't include in your comparison.

I think I am replying to the oft-heard crypto argument that because bitcoin is self contained we need to bring in the whole costs of the current financial system to compare it. This was my first attempt at it - and it seems bitcoin loses badly - the current bitcoin energy use is easily comparable or greater than the energy use of the people, buildings etc of the global finance industry. And bitcoin still cannot buy m…

> the current bitcoin energy use is easily comparable or greater than the energy use of the people, buildings etc of the global finance industry

But energy consumption behavior of all people who are deployed in the global finance industry ≠ energy consumption of the median of Argentinan/Ukrankian people. I think you can agree that most people who work in finance are generally in at least low middle-class to super wealthy. If you compare the mobility/consumption index of such a class to median income level of countries where wealth is generally much lower, the equation changes drastically in favor of computers doing the job without having the urge to fly to fiji over the WE, up to 4x between poor and lower middle-class already [1]

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-by-income-region

Post reply on HN