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

The Great Bifurcation

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#161

Post by Mezzie »

eclipxe wrote: post #150
Mezzie wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, but I also think that we'll see this biology flowering from non-tech people who have some tech skill. So it won't be tech companies moving into biology space, it will be lab workers and students who know some coding realizing that 'hey, I could do this thing using my phone' and sharing with each other. I also think that as the sector grows and we see more people trained, we'll see a medical research boom the sa…

Can you expand on this: > I also think we're overdue for some major social changes because our current ways aren't sustainable (regardless of what you think the problems are + what 'side' you're on, I think we can almost all agree that this can't continue). I'd love to hear more of your POV here - I tend to think things are....pretty okay? In the grand scheme of things?

In the grand scheme of things, they are. (I mean, for most of human existence we barely had any medicine and as a disabled person, I do love me some medical science).

Change, however, doesn't come based on how good things are. It comes based on what people expect from the future, and right now we have a system that more and more people aren't trusting to be there in a few decades.

From a domestic American POV, we need to address things like retirement funding, healthcare, and political corruption as well as our lack of social cohesion. Imagine a pandemic like COVID but slightly deadlier in the late 2020s; it'd be absurd because EVERYBODY'S blown their good will at this point. Likewise, our supply chains and economy clearly don't have key risk redundancies built in. On a more sociological scale, I note that more and more people are beginning to feel like it doesn't matter what they do because the system will ALWAYS fuck them, and stripping people of agency doesn't lead to good, stable societies.

On a global scale, since the start of the Industrial Revolution we've focused on growth while disregarding externalities and we really need to stop that. Likewise, since America is going to probably go down (or at least knock itself out of the unipolar world) in the 2030s/2040s, I also imagine there will be a backlash to the American Era, including in cultural values, which will also result in big changes.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#162

Post by Mezzie »

crabmusket wrote: post #132
Mezzie wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, but I also think that we'll see this biology flowering from non-tech people who have some tech skill. So it won't be tech companies moving into biology space, it will be lab workers and students who know some coding realizing that 'hey, I could do this thing using my phone' and sharing with each other. I also think that as the sector grows and we see more people trained, we'll see a medical research boom the sa…

> Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements Why is "big pharma" not this?

This is a fascinating question, because my first thought was 'maybe they would be' but as I thought about it more, I don't think so for two main reasons:

1.) Geopolitics. I don't imagine this biological cultural flowering to come from the First or Developed Worlds. If I had to guess, I'd say India or Africa, because they have a ton of manufacturing going on (and therefore a bunch of practical knowledge) AND governments that both a.) don't give a shit about copyright or property law outside of their borders and b.) are incentivized to make sure it stays that way.

For example, Moderna could try to bury an Indian biotech company, but how? Literally. So what if they're infringing on one of your patents in making their 'turn your eyes purple' serum? They don't care.

And for buying, yes, they could, but the regulatory differences between acting in the developed versus developing world are huge, so it would be purchasing a company solely to keep the product off the market/so it isn't approved in the developed world before their own version. Okay, so they buy the company... and all the foreigners quit and start a new one. Or they don't, but they tell their friends so their friends who didn't sign an NDA do it and then hire them for something 'unrelated'.

2.) Vertical integration or lack thereof. You know how FB is particularly insidious in the Third World? How it pushes WA, for example? Good luck developing anything tech wise without being bought out or discovered when all of your communication tools are made by the people who have an interest in burying you. The tech companies have done a very good job at integrating themselves into logistics at a base level on a global scale. Pharma, on the other hand, doesn't have this advantage. If Google or Apple ARE recording all my phone calls, they aren't giving that data to Moderna. They'd rather keep it and later try to poach the medical-data business from Moderna or fund some SaaS company.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#163

Post by swader999 »

pedalpete wrote: post #133
Mezzie wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to call it now: The zeitgeist of the 2030s and 2040s will be a focus on biology to contrast with technology. So instead of trying to eliminate humans from the equation, we'll see a group of people who take parts of tech they like (such as systems thinking) and focus it on human improvement instead of external tech. Think genetically engineered humans vs. cyborgs; there will be a focus on holistic 'working w…

This is starting to happen now, and we're working on it related to neurology and improving sleep at https://soundmind.co Cyborg always has the feeling of a severely augmented and strange human. I'm surprised by the number of people who have no interest in Neuralink, and say they wouldn't go near it. As we're seeing the mental health benefits of sometimes turning off our digital devices and focusing on ourselves, I th…

Who owns the OS, rootkit exploits and ransomeware attacks will get a little more scrutiny and consequential.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#164

Post by Mezzie »

swader999 wrote: post #163
pedalpete wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is starting to happen now, and we're working on it related to neurology and improving sleep at https://soundmind.co Cyborg always has the feeling of a severely augmented and strange human. I'm surprised by the number of people who have no interest in Neuralink, and say they wouldn't go near it. As we're seeing the mental health benefits of sometimes turning off our digital devices and focusing on ourselves, I th…

Who owns the OS, rootkit exploits and ransomeware attacks will get a little more scrutiny and consequential.

I know just enough about that shit to not want to go ANYWHERE near Neuralink or the 'Metaverse'.

Which is sad because I love the idea so much. Plus I remember the Web before advertising, I don't even want to think of what they'd do with NL or the Metaverse. I can see them doing things like trigging shots of adrenaline so I feel appropriately angry viewing 'Red/Blue Team Bad' video stories.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#165

Post by maxwell »

tialaramex wrote: post #137
maxwell wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrible predictor? "While the Internet beckons brightly, seductively flashing an icon of knowledge-as-power, this nonplace lures us to surrender our time on earth. A poor substitute it is, this virtual reality where frustration is legion and where–in the holy names of Education and Progress–important aspects of human interactions are relentlessly devalued."

Stoll basically says (in 1995 when he wrote that) none of what we actually got will happen. He's laughably badly off, almost "But my Bible says the world will end in 2012" wrong. Stoll even mentions other predictions he suggests are ludicrous, but which of course came true - not because those other predictors were extraordinary but because it was already fairly obvious and Stoll doesn't see it. "Nicholas Negroponte,…

His criticisms were valid. Society choose to eat the shit cake.

He was optimistic that the web wouldn't destroy local institutions and benefit authoritarian regimes over democratic society. That local journalism and commerce wouldn't be subsumed by a few giant, highly destructive monopolizing web-powered multinationals. That we would still read the "friendly pages of a book" instead of only the "myopic glow" of screens.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#166

Post by invisiblerobot »

toast0 wrote: post #74
skybrian wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the limit was reached with the backlash against Google Glass. Having a camera on your face was a bridge too far. Phones you can put away. Some people like VR but they use it at home. On the other hand, earbuds and smart watches haven't had the same issues.

I think the backlash against Google Glass might have subsided if it had been a useful device that was widely available. (Of course, the wide release version was on watches) As it was, wearing a Google Glass was making several statements: I have acccess to this special thing; I'm going to wear this mostly useless object in a highly visible location on my body; and if actually using it in public, I don't care that havi…

Also it implies you may be recording me without my permission...drunk...in a bar...with my mistress.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#167

Post by detaro »

raydev wrote: post #116
detaro wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of the things the parent listed are for "tech-savvy/nerd-types"?

I was only aware of a few households that owned a computer in the late 90s/early 00s. And only one had reliable dialup. My closest friend got DSL in 2000-ish. But again, it was because his dad worked from home occasionally. No one else in my large extended family or friendgroup was online in any significant way. Among my peers at school, I think most of them had heard of AIM by that point, but most didn't have screen…

Ok, fair point, 2001 is early. But you only need to give it a few years for that to change, and didn't need some fundamental new thing from there, it "just" became more widely accessible.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#168

Post by crabmusket »

Mezzie wrote: post #162
crabmusket wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements Why is "big pharma" not this?

This is a fascinating question, because my first thought was 'maybe they would be' but as I thought about it more, I don't think so for two main reasons: 1.) Geopolitics. I don't imagine this biological cultural flowering to come from the First or Developed Worlds. If I had to guess, I'd say India or Africa, because they have a ton of manufacturing going on (and therefore a bunch of practical knowledge) AND governmen…

I did not see this reply until now because I'm bad at HN, but I appreciate the effort you put into it. It's really interesting to think about, but I'm not sure I can engage much because I'm pretty out of my depth!

Does point 1) not apply to tech innovations outside the global north as well? I can definitely see your points about patent infringement being relevant to the Chinese tech ecosystem.

Vertical integration is a really interesting point. It's easy to believe that monopolies are all-powerful, but there's plenty of room in the "margins" in industries which aren't (yet) built on pervasive surveillance.

Post reply on HN