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

761–770 of 924 posts

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#761

Post by jazzyjackson »

pjkundert wrote: post #678
wyager wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that holo introduces a shitcoin when any payment channel (lightning, some USD service, etc) would work means I'm not going to take it seriously.

A cryptocurrency that will continue to work reliably and without a bound on aggregate transaction rate in the face of network Partitioning is … a “shitcoin”?

Point is if you solved a problem, you can sell the solution for USD

Attaching a solution to a cryptocurrency comes off as just wanting to sell tokens, not sell the solution.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#762

Post by thewarrior »

leonixyz wrote: post #741

Man: if you weren't able to design a big, centralized system that works, don't repeat the same propaganda you were fed with for years: that is, that central state-level planification don't work. Look at China, and tell them their system is going to crash. They will laught at you, and you deserve it. Stop repeating this propaganda and start questioning your assumptions. You are saying that we need some kind of overall…

Isn’t China somewhat of an example of what the author suggests ?

It is a market economy with a very strong central regulator.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#763

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

acdha wrote: post #737
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad we can't just fork a copy without ads and use that instead.

The reason you can't fork it is because the copyright owner wants to maintain control. That means that the content will never be on a blockchain even if we see the 8+ orders of magnitude efficiency improvements which would be needed to do so and when you've built the systems which would be necessary to hold and authorize access you don't get anything except expense and support burden from a blockchain.

Oh, my point was that we can and already have (ok, a DHT is not a blockchain, but it's the same sort of deal). I pay for Prime for the shipping, so I could stream it, but I still torrent the content because it's just more convenient to have the file.

The only thing that DeFi changes about this scenario is that it's going to get easier for me to pay the people who make the content available in the format that I prefer. When it's sufficiently mature, that'll mean paying the artists as well. It's just a shame that we're not there yet.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#764

Post by themacguffinman »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #720
themacguffinman wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm saying it's not pragmatic, it's the opposite of pragmatic. Of course people want governmental recognition, many hetero married couples want it and already rely on it. Gay couples also want equal rights on top of that. They want both. This is cutting the proverbial baby in half and redefining the legal institution so no one gets what they want, that will go well in a democracy /s

I think what seems really off is just that we've legislated a single concrete version of something instead of it's abstraction (a person capable of making good choices). It makes sense to give people a way to indicate they intend to give a person legal rights, but it doesn't make sense to imply (by the concrete choice of "marriage") that it's basically going to be a person that you're having sex with, or monogamous w…

The people who fought gay marriage argued that expanding the institution to include same sex pairings would demean what they consider sacred and what they think all of their countrymen should consider sacred too. A common meme was "next you'll be saying we can marry X" with the clear implication that we should not be able to just marry X.

But your idea of a win-win compromise is "let's expand it even further so I can include not just same-sex couples, but my grandmother or random roommate too"?

Of course it's about monogamy. Of course it's about who you have sex with. Why do you think we have laws around adultery and divorce? Our democracy wanted to govern adultery and divorce so much that it enshrined it into law, but also lol it should be easy to get support for repealing the whole thing because I don't think it makes sense /s

Fight for it if you wish, I think this can of worms is just about the furthest thing from a politically & legally pragmatic solution that you could possibly come up with in a Western democracy like majority Christian USA.

I'm reading your "software engineer" description of concrete vs abstraction as if that's remotely relevant to the law & politics of helping gays rightfully access a beneficial institution and I'm just thinking "holy shit if this is kind of attitude that crypto folks promise to bring into the political institution of finance, PLEASE KEEP THEM AWAY FROM IT".

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#765

Post by andrewprock »

solveit wrote: post #601
andrewprock wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cash transactions are easily reversible. I'm not sure why we think they are not.

How do you reverse a cash transaction in a way that doesn't apply to crypto?

You simply hand the money back. There is no transaction fee, there is no lengthy clearing time. It's dirt simple.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#766

Post by mistermann »

vorpalhex wrote: post #568
mistermann wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4. "How about we have a conversation, perhaps if we think about it we can find a compromise that works out for both of us?" Note also that such conversations can even be had that don't involve the disagreeable party (if they're that difficult), but if they are of high enough quality and visibility (such that they can get public momentum) they can change the person's mind based on them seeing which way the wind is blo…

4 is just 1. Compromise inherently involves both parties giving something up. That only works for up to N parties. You can't achieve stable compromise with everyone ever because you have parties that are not rectifiable. You could also read 4 as an example of 3. If you are going to force someone to say yes by social pressure or threatening to burn down their house, that's still authoritarian.

> 4 is just 1. Compromise inherently involves both parties giving something up.

Submission and compromise may be similar in many cases, but they are not the same.

> That only works for up to N parties.

In the cases where it only works for N parties (which can vary wildly depending on the situation), agreed.

> You can't achieve stable compromise with everyone ever because you have parties that are not rectifiable.

That which is impossible is indeed impossible. However, that which is predicted does not always turn out so.

> You could also read 4 as an example of 3.

If you aren't concerned about accuracy, I suppose.

> If you are going to force someone to say yes by social pressure or threatening to burn down their house, that's still authoritarian.

Depends which meaning of the word you're using, this is the first hit on Google:

authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#767

Post by PragmaticPulp »

kizer wrote: post #732
throwaway803453 wrote: post #430

* Everyone seems to increasingly be in it for themselves I was fortunate to have had a career with mild autonomy to help other team members even if it was slightly out of my job description. But this only happens in a shared office environment where you can see when someone is falling behind or overhear a problem. That physical presence also creates a bond with co-workers that's often more powerful than the corporate…

I know. I'm mixed on this, but isn't it ultimate work-life separation? Getting a little sci-fi here, but imagine not even knowing the names of your coworkers, project, manager, or even employer in the future; the system is so well-designed that you just have to do the little mission and there are communication channels minimally restricted to just the questions you'd have. Once such a system got up and running it wou…

> I know. I'm mixed on this, but isn't it ultimate work-life separation?

Work-life separation originally meant that you were done with work at 5PM, didn’t have to worry about staying late or answering e-mails at night, and your weekends were 100% yours.

This latest iteration of work/life separation has gone to an extreme where you’re supposed to suck the life out of work and pretend all of your coworkers are just faceless screen names instead of actual people.

Work/life balance is good.

Sucking the life out of work is not fun, IMO. I’d much rather work with people, collaborate, and build relationships than be reduced to a robot taking tasks from the queue.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#768

Post by api »

wanderingmind wrote: post #440

Seriously where do all these people come from who think society is worse today that it was a few decades before. It's not. There has never been an opportunity for so many people at various levels. Artists have it the best now in the internet era where they have various streams to monetize their work. Case in point is Spotify. Ofcourse Spotify and other providers are going to make money off artists. But without them m…

It's inverse survivorship bias. The past looks great because we only remember and preserve the good things. The present looks like shit because the shit is still around.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#769

Post by a-dub »

a-dub wrote: post #754

whatever this will be, will be. que sera, sera... o' lord, please bless us and protect us from thy holy hells of capitalist economic centralization. please let there be upon us deliverance for all, from this century of hellfire and brimstone, consolidation of silicon and machine code... deliver us with the great gifts of modern encryption for mesh networking with centralized administration, all for a very reasonable…

plato.

the only true antidote to the ills of today's modern capitalist society where technology has supercharged capitalist centralization past the point of no return is obviously the application of platonic ideals to the practice of ip networking for the purposes of optimizing hybrid cloud connectivity for critical business operation environments.

now.. imagine if plato were the senior cloud engineer charged with migrating the walmart.com of ancient greece to the cloud from truly legacy on premises datacenters. how might he complete said migration with zero downtime?

well. one option would be to configure a virtual private network that spans both the legacy datacenter and the vpcs in the new environment and then slowly move services one by one, but then that means that any legacy security issues will be carried directly into the new environment. plato would never have that!

how about encrypted mesh networking? well, that's actually quite wonderful, but that sounds a little too much like messy and complicated democracy for our friend plato. all those machines with their own configurations, the demos of the datacenter, running around talking to each other willy-nilly... plato's skin would crawl at the thought of that! he knows that at first it's all fun and games, but then the next thing you know, one of those machines with a slight orange hue and a bunch of real estate wealth would start taking political potshots and broadcasting them to everybody... that machine would then be able to leverage widespread discontent with the state of the environment to ascend to power only to then nearly bring the entire system down in a giant ball of flames. plato knows better than that!

no, plato would make the smart choice. plato would choose to consolidate management to a centralized city on a hill inhabited by saas philosopher kings. the kind and benevolent inhabitants of said citadel would be tasked with managing his mesh network, carefully controlling which tunnels are permitted and which tunnels are disallowed, periodically rotating keys on a meticulous and well-planned schedule making use of automation that minimizes downtime and administration headaches.

plato also would ask himself about vendor lock-in, and fairness in pricing. plato would not accept solutions that are tied to proprietary service providers or non-open codebases. plato would demand open source underpinnings and fair dealings.

so. when you're tasked with redesigning modern networking environments that span both on-premises datacenters and cloud environments, and you want to stay true to making good choices which support your general dissatisfaction with the post-optimistic technology fueled hyperdrive self-cannibalization of capitalism, remember to ask yourself...

how would plato maximize uptime, minimize costs and simplify management of his secure hybrid network with no long term commitments or fears of vendor lock-in?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#770

Post by beckman466 »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #761
pjkundert wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cryptocurrency that will continue to work reliably and without a bound on aggregate transaction rate in the face of network Partitioning is … a “shitcoin”?

Point is if you solved a problem, you can sell the solution for USD Attaching a solution to a cryptocurrency comes off as just wanting to sell tokens, not sell the solution.

> Attaching a solution to a cryptocurrency comes off as just wanting to sell tokens, not sell the solution.

well yeah it's not ideal, yet the holochain foundation does all their work in the open and have to fund their development somehow (https://github.com/holochain/holochain). better doing an ethical ico-like crowdsourcing (based on a unit of computing power, like Airbnb but for processing power) than strapping into the chains of Venture Capital.

most important though is that the main framework created by the Holochain team is fully open source (linked above). so using the Holo host system is optional. it is meant as a way to enable easy onboarding of new users for new Holochain apps. Holo's distributed web of nodes help non-technical users use Holochain apps without being technically literate enough. so Holo users like my mom will be comfortable using Holochain apps that look like client-server apps, until we as a society transition to fully p2p apps, and the ecosystem as a whole matures to a point where we no longer need this 'bridge'.

also cool is that, inspired by LETS and similar systems, the holochain framework allows easy deployment of mutual credit currencies [1]. imo the most exciting implementation of this is the Resources Events Agents (REA) accounting by http://mikorizal.org led by, amongst others, two retired software engineers. you can check out their project http://valueflo.ws. there is another project not building on Holochain, but using the Valueflo.ws ontology/vocabulary called bonfire: https://github.com/bonfire-networks/bonfire_valueflows (main website: https://bonfirenetworks.org/)

anyways, before dismissing this project because of preconceived notions about the cryptocurrencies (which i agree are 99.999999% shitcoins), please read through their awesome developer docs: https://developer.holochain.org/

think of Holochain like a Ruby on Rails framework, but for distributed applications instead of client-server: https://medium.com/holochain/holochain-reinventing-applicati...

[1] https://medium.com/holochain/beyond-blockchain-simple-scalab...

Post reply on HN