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

What I think about network states

vitalik.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 144 posts

Re: What I think about network states

#11

Post by shafyy »

capableweb wrote: post #5
braingenious wrote: post #3

I used to know a guy that smoked >2g of meth per day that would talk nonstop about shit like this. He lived in a makeshift shed at the bottom of a dry river bed. He’s long dead now but he’d have gotten a kick out of “keto kosher” for sure!

The line between insane and genius is indeed seemingly small. Reminds me of when I talked with a quantum scientist. Most of what he said, sounded like ramblings from a coke head, but seemingly others around him understood what he said and continued the discussion, so I can only assume they were actually having a real conversation. If I'd met the guy under different circumstances, I'd definitely wouldn't have believed…

There's no line. Most "geniuses" are fucking insane, they just happen to be right about one thing.

Re: What I think about network states

#12

Post by Vespasian »

ihm wrote: post #6

Seems founded on a totally unmaterialist and unscientific understanding of how societies persist themselves. This is evident in Balaji’s fixation on the psychology of the individuals involved. E.g., saying intentional communities have failed because they didn’t have a religious devotion to the project, like “Zionism without Judaism”. Instead he should talk about “Zionism without the British empire and the Holocaust”,…

Also the most basic question:

"You and what army?" Either they pay/bribe whatever governments have an interest in them or they find a way to (threaten to) defend themselves against people who are much more organized and economically supported than their paradise for rich people.

In the later cases you need to find 'volunteers' who (might) "die in the trenches" and I've got a feeling that you those are not to abundant in a society characterized by the desire to get away.

Others have tried and failed. E.g. The Khmer Rouge did enforce massive changes on society, according with their ideology, but in the end they were removed from power with the help of tanks planes and guns.

Re: What I think about network states

#14

Post by kreetx »

pphysch wrote: post #4

Realistically speaking: take a multinational corporation, dial up their employee care package (potentially to include all costs of living), and then (???) circumvent all local regulations, declare independence, etc. Why and how do you do the last parts? This is libertarian/Trotskyist utopianism with a copious helping of cryptomania.

Multinationals arent "run" for the good of their people and don't seem to have any central value which motivates their being.

And crypto here is simply a tool to enforce whatever rules they have to run their org (in the same sense that no-one can take your btc, but a government can take your fiat if they wanted to).

Re: What I think about network states

#16

Post by nradov »

capableweb wrote: post #5
braingenious wrote: post #3

I used to know a guy that smoked >2g of meth per day that would talk nonstop about shit like this. He lived in a makeshift shed at the bottom of a dry river bed. He’s long dead now but he’d have gotten a kick out of “keto kosher” for sure!

The line between insane and genius is indeed seemingly small. Reminds me of when I talked with a quantum scientist. Most of what he said, sounded like ramblings from a coke head, but seemingly others around him understood what he said and continued the discussion, so I can only assume they were actually having a real conversation. If I'd met the guy under different circumstances, I'd definitely wouldn't have believed…

I listened to an interview with Kanye West. Most of what he said was batshit crazy. The man is obviously mentally ill. But occasionally he said something so profound and insightful it made me think for a moment that he was the only sane one and it's the rest of us who are crazy.

Re: What I think about network states

#17

Post by hjanssen »

The idea that really any state on this planet would recognize such a "state" as independent and would not treat it as a terrorist/criminal organisation is laughable and reeks of the typical tech-bro mindset that I have come to expect of any individual who willingly associates themselves with the crypto-bubble.

Re: What I think about network states

#18

Post by rvz »

shafyy wrote: post #10

Here's something some software engineers need to understand: Most things in society and the world are not technical problems. Just because you can invert a binary tree doesn't mean you understand how society works. It seems like some people, just because they are smart in one area, think they know everything. We see this with many VCs, Elon Musk, Vitalik etc. Reading this post, I don't even know where to begin. This…

Precisely said.

> It seems like some people, just because they are smart in one area, think they know everything. We see this with many VCs, Elon Musk, Vitalik etc.

Totally correct. Elon's wild claims on solving FSD (Fools Self Driving) seemed to be a total disaster, and Vitalik's claims on his decentralized slot machine utopia 'Ethereum' on how using a generalized blockchain to solve 'anything' from voting, social networks, DAOs, NFTs, etc has manifested into a tinkerbell griftopia [0] as feared by even the most fierce critics of blockchains.

Finally, VCs really don't care on being wrong on thousands of failed investments. They just need one massive return to make up for all of it hundreds of times over and somehow they are viewed as 'experts' which is a great example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. We don't hear them screaming about Clubhouse which was hyped to the extreme since it is isn't doing great as expected after being copied to death.

Also reading this article in particular, it is gearing close to sophistry.

[0] https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/tinkerbell.html

Re: What I think about network states

#19

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

nradov wrote: post #16
capableweb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line between insane and genius is indeed seemingly small. Reminds me of when I talked with a quantum scientist. Most of what he said, sounded like ramblings from a coke head, but seemingly others around him understood what he said and continued the discussion, so I can only assume they were actually having a real conversation. If I'd met the guy under different circumstances, I'd definitely wouldn't have believed…

I listened to an interview with Kanye West. Most of what he said was batshit crazy. The man is obviously mentally ill. But occasionally he said something so profound and insightful it made me think for a moment that he was the only sane one and it's the rest of us who are crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWGW_MzWNsE

Re: What I think about network states

#20

Post by paisawalla »

henearkr wrote: post #8

Yay even more groupism. Like nationalism, bigotry and racism weren't enough. I think we should move towards a more integrated Earth, not more partitioning.

> Like nationalism, bigotry and racism weren't enough.

Please no.

I would like to exit the bureaucracy of mother hens pecking me to death as they enforce ever-narrowing boundaries of permissible thought -- that is, when they are not decking my neighborhood and workplace with messages demanding my homage to the current thing. You, apparently, would like to make that the universal condition.

Some people read "a boot stamping on a human face -- forever" as a compelling vision, and not a warning.

Post reply on HN