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

831–840 of 924 posts

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#831

Post by squabble »

whatshisface wrote: post #438
samhw wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> none of the participants in the financial system have ever been interested in designing a financial system I agree to some extent with the view that we should see systems as emergent phenomena arising from countless participants none of whom understands or intends the entire thing, but you can go overboard with that. There are clearly some participants who have taken a 'God's eye view' and tried to re/design an ent…

Breton Woods and Visa/Mastercard were top level designs... But they were designed to make money. (For the US and Visa/Mastercard respectively.) Nobody has ever taken the "god's eye view" with the intent to be nice.

How do you know their intent?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#832

Post by roeles »

syndacks wrote: post #270
zackmorris wrote: post #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…

You had me except for the reincarnation/another life bit. Bedsides scripture, is there any evidence of this in science? I'm asking genuinely here.

I am often inspired by eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism, but I've not been able to grasp the whole reincarnation things.

It is certainly true that the atoms that make up your body have been transformed from the atoms around you (the food you eat, for example) into what you call "my body". And they will not remain as "your body" forever. Hell, I think the majority of cells in your body do not even carry your DNA.

Same with your habits, with many of the thoughts we think. Would you be exactly the same person if you were born in a completely different culture?

Perhaps the point in talking about reincarnation is not to figure out "how it works", but taking a holistic view beyond the perceived boundaries of "self". Much of eastern philosophy appears to be, at least to me.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#833

Post by roeles »

zackmorris wrote: post #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…

> 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 [...]

What if the world is not wrong at all? What if we're failing? That's how humanity learns, by failing. Sometimes by failing big time. I think it's human nature to resist change for the large part, except for when the benefits of changing clearly outweigh the benefits of not changing. If that's true, then a large failure in any context is the breeding ground for change.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#834

Post by vineyardmike »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #527
kube-system wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Marriage is a contract. The really interesting thing is that marriage is a contract that changes over time (as the government modifies law), without either party re-consenting to the new agreement. It's part of why I will probably never get married, it technically represents infinite risk.

> it technically represents infinite risk.

a) Prenuptial agreements help some.

b) I hope your partner doesn't have a different view of what it represents.

c) this is actually a real interesting perspective I haven't heard. You're absolutely right and (like many things) the government could pass a law changing what it means, and who knows the affect. Actually, basically everything ever can change with government law changes (eg. taxes?) so maybe this isn't profound.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#836

Post by goodpoint »

Jensson wrote: post #773
goodpoint wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The system worked for two-three decades Yes, that's my whole point. > Re: Amazon - you can't compare countries with private corporations. ...and why? The similarity is more than evident.

Amazon has competitors, a central government do not. If the central planning fails to deliver a product then there is nobody there to deliver the product, if that product was food then people starve. This lack of competition is both bad for robustness as I described, and bad for efficiency since it means that people has to get their goods from the government and can't choose to get it somewhere else, so there is no s…

> Amazon has competitors, a central government do not

Countries engage in international trade and also go to war. If anything they compete more ruthlessly.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#837

Post by nadahalli »

ntr-- wrote: post #748
pjkundert wrote: post #39

This article is profoundly insightful. I have been searching for patterns and insights in this field for 25 years. What apenwarr concludes is true: All we need is to build distributed systems that work. That means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. The problem is, everyone wants distributed systems that require everyone else to agree (global consensus), which is literally impossible (see: CAP theor…

Incredible. > There is of course the most obvious horrifically misguided recently-popular "decentralized" system, whose name shall not be spoken in this essay. Instead let's back up to something older and better understood: markets. My reading was the author was referring here to cryptocurrencies and you read the article, claim it's profound, and then spruik an ERC-20 token.

I was like "This cannot be the top comment on HN". It is. Sigh.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#838

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #624
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have never in your life been motivated to help someone else with needs you didnt have?

Complaints and needs are different things.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#839

Post by zarzavat »

soco wrote: post #303
zarzavat wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How about declaring it in the first place?

You'll still end up in the room regardless. Most governments are pretty interested in people who carry large amounts of gold through borders! They might make you forfeit that gold if they don't like your answers, or if you have too much.

Cryptocurrency's digital nature makes it much more useful than gold. It can be stored like gold in a vault, but it can also be transmitted over the internet like a bank transfer. It's pretty incredible stuff.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#840

Post by pydry »

wyre wrote: post #475
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universal Healthcare doesn't particularly threaten corporate interests either. Remember when centrist Obama tried to implement the Heritage foundation approved version and everyone went a little crazy for no obvious reason? It would be comforting to think that some evil geniuses were holding back universal healthcare for their own benefit, but it's mostly just lingering stupidity and racism that's holding America bac…

Having health care tied to employment is a corporate interest. Corporations need workers and everyone needs health care, so by making health care come chained to employment it keeps workers stuck in their jobs.

Also the entire HMO and insurance industry that is one of the biggest political donors.

It's mind boggling how some people see eye watering profits and political donations and think that the whole thing is driven by stupidity.

Post reply on HN