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

The Crime of Curiosity

piratewires.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#141

Post by ausbah »

people need to trust science because the average person doesn't have the scientific background necessary, much less the time, to evaluate the accuracy of everything scientific they deal with - especially in the realm of medicine

like it's great you want to make things accessible and help people take charge of more things in life, but I don't think most people want that - and even of those who do say they want that, few will still take the time necessary to actually understand stuff correctly

which leads to the related issue that caused all the regulations and regulators we have today, people falling prey to snake oil salesman and downright harmful products in the marketplace. just look at the state of "nutritional supplaments" today

to me, I think people should just be more aware of the limitations of what they can really learn given the constraints of day to day life and accept that specialization is necessary to making modern society function - thus putting their trust in the appropriate authorities when necessary

but even that is a idealistic goal so idk

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#142

Post by Barrin92 »

simorley wrote: post #140
Barrin92 wrote: post #62

The author conflates two things. The right to biohack at home and Youtube's alleged obligation to let him broadcast his material. The first one is okay, as long as we're not talking about experiments that may be dangerous to the public. (which he seems to categorically reject for some reason, while home made bioterrorism is a real threat), the second one just doesn't follow at all. Youtube has no realistic way to tel…

This comment is so antithetical to the "spirit of the internet" and hacking in general that I'm in shock. > 77% of the Youtube audience in the US are 17-25 years old, it's not some niche forum for engineers and the notion that they can read scientific papers and weed out legitimate science created at home from misinformation is absurd. Only PhDs or engineers are allowed to be interested? You think only people with CS…

>that I'm in shock

You're in shock of the attitude that hackers should stay off mainstream commercial platforms and avoid pandering to a generic audience? You do realize why we're having this conversation on HN and not on Facebook right?

The 2% of the young adults who are genuinely interested in science and tech and DIY maker culture will find him regardless where he is. That's how it always works when people actually care, it's a good filter.

I'm not paternalistic, I'm opposed to grifters and attention-seeking. There has always been a barrier to entry in hacker culture because getting past it signals that you have some commitment and degree of willingness to learn, which is particularly important when we're talking about gene-editing yourself

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#143

Post by watwut »

simorley wrote: post #140
Barrin92 wrote: post #62

The author conflates two things. The right to biohack at home and Youtube's alleged obligation to let him broadcast his material. The first one is okay, as long as we're not talking about experiments that may be dangerous to the public. (which he seems to categorically reject for some reason, while home made bioterrorism is a real threat), the second one just doesn't follow at all. Youtube has no realistic way to tel…

This comment is so antithetical to the "spirit of the internet" and hacking in general that I'm in shock. > 77% of the Youtube audience in the US are 17-25 years old, it's not some niche forum for engineers and the notion that they can read scientific papers and weed out legitimate science created at home from misinformation is absurd. Only PhDs or engineers are allowed to be interested? You think only people with CS…

> This comment is so antithetical to the "spirit of the internet" and hacking in general that I'm in shock

There is no such thing as spirit of the internet and hacking in general.

And never ever was. It was always range of attitudes and approaches. From the get go, with massive assholes thrown into mix seeking to damage for luls, with elitists, with gatekeepers and what not.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#144

Post by watwut »

mmahemoff wrote: post #132
Barrin92 wrote: post #62

The author conflates two things. The right to biohack at home and Youtube's alleged obligation to let him broadcast his material. The first one is okay, as long as we're not talking about experiments that may be dangerous to the public. (which he seems to categorically reject for some reason, while home made bioterrorism is a real threat), the second one just doesn't follow at all. Youtube has no realistic way to tel…

"Youtube has no realistic way to tell whether someone producing home-made science on youtube is a phd ex-nasa biohacker who follows best practices or just a complete quack who tries to sell dangerous fake remedies to vulnerable people." We shouldn't pretend someone with a significant following is banned or demonetized because The Algorithm Made Me Do It™. YouTube has the resources to verify if a popular streamer is a…

Many quacks and grifters have PhD. Youtube would had to actually verify content.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#145

Post by reginold »

notriddle wrote: post #95
reginold wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed - the lesson here is platforms like YouTube have a lot more control than most assume. An easy to use, censorship resistant, video host seems needed.

> An easy to use, censorship resistant, video host seems needed. Are you sure? It sounds nice, but I think in practice it would be overrun with quacks selling herbal remedies that claim to make your boobs bigger, just like email. So instead of censorship being built-in, you get censorship tacked on after-the-fact. In the world of search engines, bad content drives out good. Alternatively, you have a dumb pipe that ta…

I'm sure. And yes, we need to solve that problem too. But it's more like a spam folder than a deletion. Like someone else on HN pointed out, "label, not remove"

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#146

Post by kongin »

ausbah wrote: post #141

people need to trust science because the average person doesn't have the scientific background necessary, much less the time, to evaluate the accuracy of everything scientific they deal with - especially in the realm of medicine like it's great you want to make things accessible and help people take charge of more things in life, but I don't think most people want that - and even of those who do say they want that, f…

> people need to trust science because the average person doesn't have the scientific background necessary, much less the time, to evaluate the accuracy of everything scientific they deal with - especially in the realm of medicine

People need to be given the information they need to make informed decisions on topics that impact them. I don't have the time or inclination to figure out if the levels of heavy metal exposure for welders in the third world are dangerous or not because it doesn't impact me. I have plenty of time to figure out if any chronic disease I get has promising treatments that haven't been approved yet. For the doctor it's a matter of a 9 to 5 job, for me it's a lot more urgent.

I just look at sci-hub and the citation web of any papers I find there.

You're saying that the solution to having an ignorant population is to make them even more ignorant for their own good. That is the type of thinking that got us the dark ages.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#147

Post by simorley »

Barrin92 wrote: post #142
simorley wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is so antithetical to the "spirit of the internet" and hacking in general that I'm in shock. > 77% of the Youtube audience in the US are 17-25 years old, it's not some niche forum for engineers and the notion that they can read scientific papers and weed out legitimate science created at home from misinformation is absurd. Only PhDs or engineers are allowed to be interested? You think only people with CS…

>that I'm in shock You're in shock of the attitude that hackers should stay off mainstream commercial platforms and avoid pandering to a generic audience? You do realize why we're having this conversation on HN and not on Facebook right? The 2% of the young adults who are genuinely interested in science and tech and DIY maker culture will find him regardless where he is. That's how it always works when people actuall…

> You're in shock of the attitude that hackers should stay off mainstream commercial platforms and avoid pandering to a generic audience?

I'm in shock because you believe 17-25 year olds should be barred from knowledge.

> You do realize why we're having this conversation on HN and not on Facebook right?

You seem to have a sense of superiority. Is HN better than facebook? I'm not so sure. You aren't better than anyone because you post here. I'm certainly not better than anyone because I post here. Certainly wasn't given any test or provided any credentials to post here.

> The 2% of the young adults who are genuinely interested in science and tech and DIY maker culture will find him regardless where he is.

This argument is even more shocking. What about the percentage of people who might have become interested if they were exposed to it? Do you know how many people developed interest in something because they were introduced to it? There are millions of minorities/women/men who didn't go into computer science because they simply weren't introduced to it.

> That's how it always works when people actually care, it's a good filter.

Because the hackers ethos is to make knowledge as difficult and impossible to reach?

> I'm not paternalistic, I'm opposed to grifters and attention-seeking.

Why didn't you say so. Why did you write so much about "17-25 year olds", PhDs/engineers, niche forums, etc? Grifters and attention-seeking isn't my cup of tea either. But they don't deserved to be banned. Also is grifting and attention seeking to under-17s and over 25s okay?

Your logic and thinking is what paternalists in the past did to women and minorities. It's why people prevented women and minorities from reading, writing and gaining knowledge because it would be too harmful to them. Nothing more anti-hacker than that.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#148

Post by wdevanny »

tidalmcmuffin wrote: post #38
ve55 wrote: post #27

The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…

> Remember that within the first year of covid, "masks work" was considered misinformation No, because that never happened. Maybe don’t spread misinformation yourself if you want to make a point.

Yes, he did. From [1]:

> "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

> He added: "I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location."

> Fauci has previously been criticized for changing his position on masks. Early on in the pandemic, he advised against wearing face coverings, but that advice evolved over time.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fauci-said-masks-not-reall...

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#149

Post by rfrey »

simorley wrote: post #147
Barrin92 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that I'm in shock You're in shock of the attitude that hackers should stay off mainstream commercial platforms and avoid pandering to a generic audience? You do realize why we're having this conversation on HN and not on Facebook right? The 2% of the young adults who are genuinely interested in science and tech and DIY maker culture will find him regardless where he is. That's how it always works when people actuall…

> You're in shock of the attitude that hackers should stay off mainstream commercial platforms and avoid pandering to a generic audience? I'm in shock because you believe 17-25 year olds should be barred from knowledge. > You do realize why we're having this conversation on HN and not on Facebook right? You seem to have a sense of superiority. Is HN better than facebook? I'm not so sure. You aren't better than anyone…

Your parent did not say any of the things you say they did.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#150

Post by popcube »

frazbin wrote: post #26
ftrobro wrote: post #13

"Democratizing genetic engineering won’t suddenly unleash bioterrorism upon the world." How sure is he of that, and why? As a comparison, nuclear power has been of great utility for many countries, but I sure would not want to see it "democratized".

Yeah I was with him up to that point. "None of the kits we sell contain anything dangerous, nor is the average person experimenting with biology inherently dangerous. If you are trying to engineer something hazardous — like say a bat virus — you might have a problem, but the genome search space is large enough that accidentally creating a harmful organism is astronomically improbable. Access to most dangerous materia…

I don't why he did not push this to undeveloped country, there are so many poor professor need cheaper cost of experiments
Post reply on HN