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

Programming in the Apocalypse

matduggan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 301 posts

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#191

Post by coolspot »

madrox wrote: post #97

The pandemic taught me a lot about apocalypse. While people are a lot slower to buy into collective action and changing their way of life than I thought, society is far more robust than I expected. Covid looked nothing like a pandemic film, thank god. With that in mind, I have some ideas on what programming will look like in 30 years: 1. New frameworks and abstractions for making apps even more disposable while maint…

> Programmer pay will decrease compared to other industries.

It is supply and demand for smart people. So far, demand for smart people increased throughout times. If earth will make more smart people or if they will be replaced/augmented with A(G)I, then pay will subside.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#192

Post by actually_a_dog »

formerly_proven wrote: post #101
mcculley wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human extinction and the mere collapse of our civilization How do you imagine human extinction being an outcome? It seems to me that the worst case scenario is large loss of population which would decrease greenhouse gas output. There would still be some increase in temperature even once we stop emitting, but wouldn't people in colder climates still survive?

There's some fairly absurd doomerism going on in the "climate catastrophe tomorrow" camp where climate change will (somehow) turn earth into a barren rock and we're inches away from triggering a self-reinforcing climate resonance cascade of unforeseen consequences. It's of course a very urgent issue, but I think exaggerating it until it becomes a threat to "all life on earth" levels is a) dishonest b) does nothing to…

40% of insect species are declining and 1/3 are endangered. In terms of biomass, we're losing 2.5% of all insects every year at the current rate. Insects are essential contributors to the biosphere, both as pollinators and as food sources.

If that's not a "threat to all life on earth," I don't know what is. And that's just what I could find with 5 seconds of googling.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti...

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#193

Post by ClumsyPilot »

coryrc wrote: post #155
titzer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What COVID taught me is that the human ability to not give a fuck is apparently infinite. I have trouble processing the fact that a million people died (in the USA) and there is no mourning, no shared sense of tragedy or loss, no looking more kindly on other people, just a madder, faster dash on cash and even more finger-pointing. > Covid was not 1% as bad as any pandemic featured in a film. I'll be generous and not…

Something like 5 million people die every year, should we be in permanent mourning?

> Something like 5 million people die every year,

Then why do we mount anything at all, death count of all terrorist attacks and shooting combined is insignificant

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#194

Post by [deleted] »

coryrc wrote: post #151
madrox wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a fallacy here in that "because covid's impact wasn't great, covid wasn't that bad." Any time we have to mobilize a lot of effort to head off the worst outcome, there's a tendency to say "well nothing really bad happened, so why did we go through all that effort?" Let's not trivialize the global effort necessary to bring us to 1/10th the death toll. It absolutely could've been worse. It's our response…

> there's a tendency to say "well nothing really bad happened, so why did we go through all that effort? Basically a third of our country didn't go through that effort and the country is mostly still chugging along. Were it much deadlier, things would not have turned out okay.

[deleted]

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#195

Post by donthellbanme »

coolspot wrote: post #191
madrox wrote: post #97

The pandemic taught me a lot about apocalypse. While people are a lot slower to buy into collective action and changing their way of life than I thought, society is far more robust than I expected. Covid looked nothing like a pandemic film, thank god. With that in mind, I have some ideas on what programming will look like in 30 years: 1. New frameworks and abstractions for making apps even more disposable while maint…

> Programmer pay will decrease compared to other industries. It is supply and demand for smart people. So far, demand for smart people increased throughout times. If earth will make more smart people or if they will be replaced/augmented with A(G)I, then pay will subside.

No post body was provided.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#196

Post by ClumsyPilot »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #192
formerly_proven wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some fairly absurd doomerism going on in the "climate catastrophe tomorrow" camp where climate change will (somehow) turn earth into a barren rock and we're inches away from triggering a self-reinforcing climate resonance cascade of unforeseen consequences. It's of course a very urgent issue, but I think exaggerating it until it becomes a threat to "all life on earth" levels is a) dishonest b) does nothing to…

40% of insect species are declining and 1/3 are endangered. In terms of biomass, we're losing 2.5% of all insects every year at the current rate. Insects are essential contributors to the biosphere, both as pollinators and as food sources. If that's not a "threat to all life on earth," I don't know what is. And that's just what I could find with 5 seconds of googling. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/…

The point the OP is making is that wiping out all life on earth is an impossible and silly benchmark. No-one sane thinks 'oh, but we don't have to do anything about climate change because some worms will survive around the thermal vents on the ocean floor'

To 'wipe out' life on earth, you have to crash the moon into it or do something similarly ridiculous - remember that a giant asteroid wasn't enough.

Wiping out all human life is possible, but again I don't think that anyone is comforted by the idea that 0.1% of the population might survive in an arctic cave.

Where we seem to fail is in communicating to folks that don't want to spend money to fix the problem today how their life will become miserable tomorrow.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#197

Post by coryrc »

titzer wrote: post #167
coryrc wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like 5 million people die every year, should we be in permanent mourning?

I know you're trolling, but I'll respond. Part of growing up and moving from just a mere legally-licensed adult is being able to hold heavy things. They never stop getting heavier. They just keep unfolding, and if you are willing to grow just a little deeper--not bigger, but deeper, like the roots of you being able to feel things, then maybe all that learning to deal with loss, tragedies, loved ones dying, aging, you…

> what the hell if we can't reflect on such a grievous time

You made the assumption the rest of us aren't. You've written a number of emotionally-laden statements about the lack of virtue amongst the rest of us, but I'm "trolling" when I point out you ignore greater loss of life happening yearly.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#198

Post by ClumsyPilot »

seibelj wrote: post #189
giantrobot wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The temperature and co2 levels have been much higher in the past. The earth has been much more tropical as well as an ice world. Humans can adapt to change quite effectively It doesn't matter what Earth was like at some point in the distant past. There weren't 8 billion humans living on it. It's not easy or cheap to move cities with populations in the millions because sea level rise puts them below water. Humans ca…

Yes but acting like 99% of humanity is going to die is irrational, illogical, not true in any reality, and scares the shit out of people. It’s tragic that doomers have made people think that has any chance of happening.

It definately could happen if major nations compete for ever-shinking habitable land or water and trigger a nuclear war.

Do you expect that several hundred million people who's previous land of habitation is now unable to support human life will just lie down and die peacefully?

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#200

Post by actually_a_dog »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #196
actually_a_dog wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40% of insect species are declining and 1/3 are endangered. In terms of biomass, we're losing 2.5% of all insects every year at the current rate. Insects are essential contributors to the biosphere, both as pollinators and as food sources. If that's not a "threat to all life on earth," I don't know what is. And that's just what I could find with 5 seconds of googling. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/…

The point the OP is making is that wiping out all life on earth is an impossible and silly benchmark. No-one sane thinks 'oh, but we don't have to do anything about climate change because some worms will survive around the thermal vents on the ocean floor' To 'wipe out' life on earth, you have to crash the moon into it or do something similarly ridiculous - remember that a giant asteroid wasn't enough. Wiping out all…

If we lost all the insects in a ~100 year period, the result would be close enough to losing "all life on earth" for anyone who doesn't have a microscope (or, more likely, a telescope). This is not an exaggeration in any sense of the word.
Post reply on HN