Live data from Hacker News

100 years of whatever this will be

apenwarr.ca

401–410 of 924 posts

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our broken institutions are fighting to protect their kingdom Three years ago I bought an apartment. I got a loan from a bank over internet and phone. The contract was three pages of clear Swedish that even I, with my rudimentary knowledge of i, could understand. The contract signing was intermediated by a person whose job is to make sure everything goes smoothly. In the end, all of the following was guaranteed : -…

Unfortunately very few people live in a democratic country with the rule of law like Sweden. For the rest, crypto can be a good place to keep their funds without the fear of losing.

The overwhelming majority of people live in countries with representative government and functioning legal systems. Yes, the US and Russia and China and India and Brazil all meet this description. Why do you believe otherwise?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This DeFi thing is big, large, involves money, teh future; is probably bubbly. There's not a lot to understand IMO. It's a wave of emotions wrapped into "tech". It's wise to treat it like a ~thing and see how it evolves.

Is it possible that DeFi is not a wave of emotions wrapped into tech? I think the more likely explanation is that it's a way for people who own crypto to borrow and lend. It's probably one of the first things to be built because there's a lot of people with crypto and banks don't want to accept it as collateral.

There's so much probabilities that I cannot help but see more dreams than reality so far. Even if some things manage to deliver .. who knows how it will evolve. Look at facebook, juggernaut, unstoppable.. already rotting. Then it's economy/finance tied.. there will be a lot of forces at play and few people that know who will influence the market more. Hence my message above.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#403
post #250

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 half agree. Yes I do think you have a bunch of technologists self-indulgently trying to apply the next shiny thing where bettering the world is second priority. However, I think changing the system from inside is largely a fool’s errand. There are indeed proven methods for political change. Unions, protest, organizing, these things. They’re unsexy and boring and tedious, much like you’ve described, but these do wor…

If you look at wealth inequality over the past 50 years it would seem to indicate that those methods don't actually seem to accomplish much.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#404
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…

The fundamental difference between cryptocurrency and gold is that cryptocurrency can be transmitted whereas gold can only be carried. Try carrying a bar of gold across a border and you'll end up in an interrogation room.

That is why diamonds are traditionally used for that sort of transfer.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood the reason we even have marriage defined in government at all, and thusly would include "gay" marriage (all marriage is marriage if it's undefined)... We don't have a government definition of prayer or baptism, but for some reason we have have codified that one religious practice into our government? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also why do they get varyingly get tax incentives or disincen…

Marriage is a contract. Governments regulate the enforcement of contracts. That's why they're involved. The religious part of marriage is entirely optional.

I think the difficulty is that for the vast majority of American history, marriages weren't really performed without any religious connotation. Hell, even legally, from what I understand, there was a time where marriages _had_ to be performed by a clergyman of some kind. Now, you're right, the religious association is technically optional, but it's worth remembering that for a very, very long time, marriage was as much a religious agreement as it was contractual.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#407

> Computers are so hard to run now, that we are supposed to give up and pay a subscription to someone .... Computers were hard to run when installing an OS meant you burnt CDs. And medium tier "webhosting" meant an expensive control panel with no root access. I'm amazed how easy things are today, you can setup and tear down operating systems in a minutes, and there's lots of medium tier server competition and a few b…

There's more made up stuff on there. Like a claim that unregulated markets are quickly filled with monopolies etc. Yet the only monopolies I see today are set up and protected by the government. And those have abysmal level of service and are really hard to use.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#408
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question! As with most choices, the level of force required to achieve compliance is more or less linearly related to the harshness of the choice. Pay a small amount of taxes? Little force required. Give full authority over your life to a faceless central planner? Great force required. Give full authority, with no chance of escape? Lethal force required. I'm not sure why this is a concept that seems to be a myst…

I'm not a strong proponent of socialism, but this seems like an outrageously loaded response to a genuine question.

It was a genuine answer.

Is force not linearly related to the gravity / undesirability of the mandate?

Are increasingly draconian mandates not rebuffed by more and more people?

Are there not plentiful examples of "Socialist" societies attempting to enforce more and harsher mandates, against anyone not willing to "give their fair share"?

If people are allowed to leave such systems for ones more to their liking, do they not flee, unless forced not to?

If those who don't "give their fair share" try to leave and are forced to stay, and staying means that they or their children may die, will they not fight to the death to escape?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#409
Like 1/3 to 1/2 of the problems in this list are just problems with using AWS or other cloud providers. I say this all the time, and nobody takes it seriously: Don't use the cloud. The cloud costs more, requires more work to set up, and provides you with machines with broken IO and 1/50th the capacity you would get if you just racked servers yourself.

Let me say it again: Compared to buying servers from Dell (or whoever) and driving them down to the local COLO and plugging them in yourself, the cloud:

- Costs more (between 5x and 20x more over the course of a 4 year depreciation for hardware).

- Is more work in the end, by a large factor (you are going to do a ton of stuff you don't need and are never going to use with the cloud. When something goes wrong you are going to spend days or months trying to fix it. Performance is so bad that you have to build very complex solutions to problems that it is very easy to just throw hardware at, like having a db server with millions of IOps, which is extremely easy if you rack hardware and basically unreasonable due to cost and hard limits in the cloud (Well over $10K/month for Postgres at 80,000 iops, which is the most you can provision).

- It's more work up front, even if you have no idea how to do anything to start with. For your deployments to be secure you have to know what you are doing either way, in AWS you just have less choices of how to set things up. Most things in AWS are at least as hard or harder than doing them yourself, and you can't fix problems you run into. Their tier 1 and tier 2 support are completely useless and just do keyword matching against their scripts.

- It costs WAY more. You pay for more than the cost to buy much better hardware and the cost to colo that hardware every 4 months. Yes that is right, if you go buy a pile of servers from dell and rack them in a colo, or buy the same capacity from EC2, the EC2 capacity you get will be far lower. Far far far lower. And you can't customize it or redeploy it for other uses as it gets older.

- When things break, you can't fix them. You just have to live with it or stop caring. IO to disk stalls randomly leaving processes in uninterruptible IO wait status for 100ms? Get fucked, they not only won't admit it's a problem, they will also hide this fact from you in all their cloudwatch metrics, and deny it is happening. Maybe it's a noisy neighbor, maybe it's their terrible networking stack, who knows, you'll never figure it out and you probably can't fix it even if you do. I have weird failure scenarios in AWS all the time that I have never seen or even contemplated as reasonable to consider on my own hardware.

- Cloud deployments are stupid. K8 is an awful system built by children who don't what is important. I don't even directly deal with K8 as my actual job, but I spend more time worrying about K8 to get code shipped today than I ever spent maintaining deployment scripts when I had to own deployments end-to-end.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, technical progress is key part of progress. Most innovators are not driven by the constant complaints of other people.

If you keep complaining about the lack of water though a pipeline will eventually be built.

No, if you collect money to pay for it it will be built. Or if the inventors themselves want the water and build it for themselves.
Post reply on HN