Live data from Hacker News

100 years of whatever this will be

apenwarr.ca

211–220 of 924 posts

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#211
post #103

This essay seems deep and profoundly insightful but I don't think it actually is. Its ultimate call for "better designed regulation" is the no-true-scotsman fallacy in sheep's clothing. How do you know if your regulations are "properly designed?" If they produce good outcomes. But the problem is that there is no consensus about what a good outcome is. Some people are not happy, for example, unless women are quite lit…

You seem absolutely certain you are right about certain issues. One of the big draws of America originally was that is was huge and open and you could join a community that agreed with what you mostly.

Yes some people view abortion as a right, others view it as murder. The process shouldn't be to gain enough power to force everyone to follow what you want. It should be to establish rules we can all live by and then live and let live. Mississippi wants strong restrictions after 15 weeks. Let them. New York wants on demand until birth. Let them.

Honestly, if I know your opinion on abortion I shouldn't be able to guess your opinion on taxes. It would be good to allow more diversity in options and long term we can see which ones work.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#212
The article mentions that we incorrectly use the term "free market" to describe the optimal market system, but I'd argue we do a similar thing with regulation. We use "regulation" to describe the "ideal regulation", and both these term misuses divide people that might otherwise agree.

I'll give one example: patents. Right now there is a discussion about waiving pharma patents in order to help with vaccine production in other countries. This is framed as a government action against businesses, when in reality it is an act of deregulation of markets. Patents are an incredibly heavy handed government regulation that uses tax dollars to protect state-sponsored monopolies of "ideas" and "inventions", creating a huge drain in terms of legal resources (courts, judges, juries if necessary), have obvious regulatory capture dynamics as that is in fact the stated goal of a patent, as well as creating entire sectors of the "private" economy that exist solely to perpetuate this system (patent lawyers, patent trolls, etc.), not to mention create networks of "safe havens" of theoretically competitor companies that are actually "allied" in their accumulation of mutually-assured-destruction patent portfolios that make it almost impossible for new startups to enter a field since they hold no such cards.

It's unfortunate that the "deregulation" discussion has been largely co-opted by these corporations as opposed to focusing on these IMO much more pertinent issues that could actually have a dramatically more positive effect.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#214
post #103

This essay seems deep and profoundly insightful but I don't think it actually is. Its ultimate call for "better designed regulation" is the no-true-scotsman fallacy in sheep's clothing. How do you know if your regulations are "properly designed?" If they produce good outcomes. But the problem is that there is no consensus about what a good outcome is. Some people are not happy, for example, unless women are quite lit…

> And BTW, the person making that argument before the Supreme Court yesterday was a woman, and one of the justices who is going to vote to eviscerate Roe is a woman, so this is not just the patriarchy at work. That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the supporting statements, though I agree with your overall sentiment.

(also the person, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, does not to my knowledge identify as a woman)

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#215

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 studied physics and the agreement I think we need is that we are literally a super-organism about to ensure its own destruction. I hate to use the term mass consciousness or whatever but it's really irresponsible to me how people are still arguing between flavors of ideologies that push us towards being more individualistic.

Reminds me of this: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconsci...

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#216
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s assume (and that’s a big if) that crypto is a fundamentally better foundation to base finance on. Even if it is, we cannot presently know that it is, and we cannot predict what its unique failure scenarios will be and how to counter them. Therefore for me arguing a headlong dive into crypto is indeed like a junior developer arguing for the big rewrite. I also fail to see the fundamental difference between crypt…

> Anyone can mine gold Bizarre comment - there's only a handful of places in the world where gold is located (most countries have close to zero), and they're probably controlled by some powerful private entity and probably under a gov license.

Nothing is preventing you just going to a gold producing river and panning for gold.

You will be just as effective doing that as someone who just runs the Bitcoin client at home.

Getting serious requires specialised hardware setup and capital intensive operations in both gold mining and Bitcoin mining.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#217
post #103

This essay seems deep and profoundly insightful but I don't think it actually is. Its ultimate call for "better designed regulation" is the no-true-scotsman fallacy in sheep's clothing. How do you know if your regulations are "properly designed?" If they produce good outcomes. But the problem is that there is no consensus about what a good outcome is. Some people are not happy, for example, unless women are quite lit…

At first I was agreeing with you - it's hard to find consensus when asking "what is good?" It's a problem as old as politics. You hit the nail on the head!

Then you started on a partisan diatribe about how the other side of politics is wrong (and stupid).

What I think you've failed to realize, is that the other view is necessary. A single party state is totalitarian by definition if not by fact. There must be other views, and there must be a struggle for dominance among ideas. The struggle for dominance is natural, and healthy, and we should embrace it, even though it might sometimes be painful, it's the only way to grow personally and as a society.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#218
I've been thinking a lot lately about first principles. For example, the Golden Rule is great, but the concept of reincarnation transcends it, making it self-evident. The Book of Genesis probably started "in a beginning", not "in the beginning". And so on.

When I look around at the state of the world today, it just makes me so tired. Everyone's running around on autopilot and not questioning the basic assumptions. It's just more more! now now! to survive. So adamant in their certainty that they've all but forgotten why we're all here to fail and learn and grow as human beings and find kindred spirits.

To me, what's wrong with the world is that people are ok with being wealthy. They're ok with rising to positions of power and then denying empowerment to others. They're ok with the law not being applied equally and fairly to everyone.

They haven't realized that inequity affects themselves in another life, that violence against others hurts themselves, that destroying the planet this century leaves no planet for their next life.

I can't prove any of this, but I know it's true, because I'm here now, just like you.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#219
post #58

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…

"Dying is easy young man, governing's harder." Something like that.

Certainly the Taliban is finding that out in Afghanistan. And there is tremendous suffering among people who don't deserve that situation.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#220

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…

Even considering the occasional refactor, it's still a lot less costly over time than this new throw-away microservices economy in many cases.

First and foremost, the problem should dictate the solution of course, but each cloud host service provider has their own unique brand of microservices that don't make a large distributed system easy/cost-effective to migrate after it's initial development as well. CSPs now do a lot to lock clients into their specific platform for life.

The monthly compute and storage bills alone are now converted to utility pricing also, so there are far too many ways in which those prices can rise and balloon unexpectedly over time that must also be considered also in all fairness.

The modern Internet is turning into a wasteland of scams, where only the rich make money after a huge buy-in, and it's sickening to see the scams and price gouging that occurs just to launch a simple web site, even with open source tools. Terms of service literally mean nothing, and they can't be enforced our upheld because of the massive financial wealth and lack of support monopolies grow into, and because regulators are also tech investors.

Major interests are working hard to raise the entry barrier and to shut out free and reasonably priced services that allow control. They are working hard to acquire highly useful tools as well so they can put a price tag on them. The more we give the wrong people vast sums of money the worse it will get, and the less options we'll have.

Post reply on HN