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

100 years of whatever this will be

apenwarr.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 924 posts

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#161

Post by nouveaux »

vorpalhex wrote: post #134
nouveaux wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's another word for "require everyone else to agree": Tyranny." I think this is often thrown out there to push back on liberals and socialism but this is the wrong point. We as a global society _need_ to agree to be productive. We need to work together to find the best solutions for as many people as possible. Everyone needs to agree that starting a nuclear war is bad. You would likely want to stop China from s…

> I think this is often thrown out there to push back on liberals and socialism but this is the wrong point. We as a global society _need_ to agree to be productive. And when someone tells you "no", how do you respond? You have three basic options: 1. Submit (but you can't submit to everyone saying no) 2. Take your toys and go home (but then your group will forever shrink) 3. Force people to say yes The only good ans…

I agree. I dont think all systems require consensus and its likely most things do not. When it comes to things that optimizes for survival, it is likely we will need consensus to be productive.

Consensus only need to happen when we are close to one another. Technology has the side effect of bringing us closer together.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#162

Post by agallant »

notpachet wrote: post #49

All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and Regulators and what not -- you know what they remind me of? They remind me of what I hear from junior developers when they're tasked with fixing an antiquated, broken software system. These developers typically lack the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within, so…

I agree that it's similar to a hard fork (and has similar problems), but would argue that (due to the "interdisciplinary" nature of fintech) it's not incompetence or laziness but rather the blind spot/hubris of being a technical person looking at a social system.

An experienced developer has seen enough technical systems to understand the lurking complexity and hard problems within them. Realizing that applies to other systems is a separate insight, and one that is harder to reliably teach/learn. It's not enough to dabble in other fields - it's easy to do that as a mental tourist, assuming your prior experience generalizes.

Learning these challenges requires a form of intellectual empathy - believing that people who think hard about things that are alien to you are still thinking hard, and have probably tried your first intuitions already, as well as things you've not thought of yet.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#163

Post by germinalphrase »

thegrimmest wrote: post #140
spyckie2 wrote: post #40

[flagged]

> as all human beings should be cared for under modern society Why on earth would you conclude that? What's wrong with Darwinian processes? Why must people be protected from the cost of their own misfortune, failure or inadequacy? Why must this cost be born by others?

He clearly indicated that he believes it leads to societal instability, violence, and collapse.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#164

Post by [deleted] »

pbourke wrote: post #147
ahtihn wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen anyone else define conservative vs liberals like that. Conservatives aren't against rules, they are against changing rules. Why are conservatives against abortion, gay marriage and drug legalisation if they don't want to be told what they can do on their "own 200 acre farm". All those issues are about enforcing a worldview on others .

> Conservatives aren't against rules, they are against changing rules. That doesn’t ring true to me. Both liberals and conservatives want to change and preserve rules according to their viewpoints.

[deleted]

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#165

Post by Hypergraphe »

notpachet wrote: post #49

All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and Regulators and what not -- you know what they remind me of? They remind me of what I hear from junior developers when they're tasked with fixing an antiquated, broken software system. These developers typically lack the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within, so…

I've worked, and still work, on large legacy codebases on a daily basis and I couldn't agree more that total rewrite is not the solution in most cases and a waste of time and money.

But, I have also witnessed projets that were poorly engineered and should have been rewritten or refactored in time to permit better integration of junior devs, prevent the burnouts and the people quitting.

Sometimes, when you don't make the good refactoring on time, you end up with nobody to maintain your software and you have to rewrite it.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#166

Post by thanatos519 »

The fact that our awkwardly exploitative synthetic systems depend on elegantly balanced natural systems which are now inexorably collapsing renders this otherwise-interesting discussion entirely moot.

Get your UUCP maps up to date -- you'll be communicating through USB sticks transported by pirates before you know it.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#167

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pbourke wrote: post #147
ahtihn wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen anyone else define conservative vs liberals like that. Conservatives aren't against rules, they are against changing rules. Why are conservatives against abortion, gay marriage and drug legalisation if they don't want to be told what they can do on their "own 200 acre farm". All those issues are about enforcing a worldview on others .

> Conservatives aren't against rules, they are against changing rules. That doesn’t ring true to me. Both liberals and conservatives want to change and preserve rules according to their viewpoints.

Conservatives want to change rules to get back to their view of what was good about the past. Liberals want to change the rules according to their view of what should be good about the future.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#168

Post by Robotbeat »

pitaj wrote: post #150
js8 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. Interestingly, he also mentions that central economic planning doesn't work (although I am not so sure I completely agree with that thesis), but this sounds very similar to Cybersyn's design.

Central panning doesn't scale because of limits to economic knowledge and calculation. You can't possibly know enough about what everyone needs or wants in an economy. Even if you did, calculating resource allocation based on that is NP.

We definitely do broad-strokes central planning in the US and every other developed country with tax system design, social support systems, and industrial policy.

The Soviet Union sucked, but it lasted an extremely long time.

The moral of the story is central planning kinda does work, just not very well if you do too much of it.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#169

Post by pdonis »

colinmhayes wrote: post #123
pdonis wrote: post #110

The article lost me here: "The job of market regulation - fundamentally a restriction on your freedom - is to prevent all that bad stuff." Here's the problem: a "market" that is regulated this way is no longer a market . In order to have a market that works at all as a market, it has to be free in the sense that all transactions are voluntary. If you restrict people's freedom to engage in the transactions of their ch…

Market failures are too common for unregulated markets to be free.

Regulation by a centralized entity, to restrict people's freedom to engage in voluntary transactions, doesn't fix market failures. It makes them worse.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#170

Post by colechristensen »

cblconfederate wrote: post #95

Markets have existed without empire overlords thoughout history though. Egyptians did not have to enforce trade rules to their neighbours, and despite whatever clashes everyone traded with each other in the mediterranean. It is exogenous rules that required the protection of an empire, such as the raids of pirates, or the threat from another empire. Since our current world order started after WW2, the governments hav…

There absolutely was regulation in Bronze Age markets. There were taxes and tax breaks for favored merchants, there were embargoes and wars fought over goods.
Post reply on HN