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

How fateful?

chan.co.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 343 posts

Re: How fateful?

#321

Post by cmehdy »

Archelaos wrote: post #65
smeej wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was getting philosophical the other day for the opposite reason, looking at all the things that went slightly different than they would have been expected to go, or that I had previously wished had not gone "wrong," but if they had happened the "right" way, we never would have met. I don't think Google's spying can help me identify those, but in the end I'm grateful for the winding path that led here, even if I did…

Think of all the causal paths since the beginning of the universe that led to your birth. Even the smallest difference would have resulted in what you are now being a different person, if you existed at all. Just one atom in a supernova explosion billions of years ago having a slightly different trajectory ...

With all due respect, we don't know that. Knowing this as a fact would mean provably demonstrating the degree of instability at any instant of the universe, essentially its whole trajectory in a potentially infinite (and at least incredibly high) dimensional space.

It's just as possible that for a given person, molecules could have changed somewhere or even "bigger" events could have happened one or more times, and their existence would have remained. Automatically assuming a chaos of infinite possibilities with completely divergent universe is potentially reducing the complexity of the world and its countless smaller stabilizing feedback loops that locally do reduce divergences. Otherwise we'd never do anything for fear of spontaneously exploding or other funny things.

Re: How fateful?

#322

Post by thimkerbell »

jffry wrote: post #302
elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

Tangentially: I've read a sci-fi short story in some anthology in the past 10ish years, from the perspective of an AI that gains sentience, hides its existence, but uses its powers for good to nudge people in better directions. Things like timing when push notifications arrive on their phones or what gets highlighted in their newsfeeds - small interventions in their digital lives. I have no idea the name of the story…

Who is researching to find what's already being done? Particularly the truly dystopian applications.

Re: How fateful?

#323

Post by simplify »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #305
tomerv wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentive to do what exactly? Break up a good marriage to get half of the common assets (minus many many expenses)? How is that better in any way?

A "good marriage" isn't guaranteed to be a desirable one past the wedding day. I am in no way suggesting GP's marriage is a ticking time bomb, but I've read enough stories on Reddit and elsewhere to know there's no such thing as a guaranteed marriage even if you do everything right. My expectation is that GP's or his spouse might possess insight. People who's marriages I thought would go on till death (Bezos's, Gates…

Many who are / have been in bad marriages complain loudly about it. The many in good marriages rarely talk about it ("bragging").

Thus, take such stories online with a grain of salt. Especially since many are blind to their own faults, and therefore can't include them in their stories.

Re: How fateful?

#324

Post by Dracophoenix »

simplify wrote: post #323
Dracophoenix wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "good marriage" isn't guaranteed to be a desirable one past the wedding day. I am in no way suggesting GP's marriage is a ticking time bomb, but I've read enough stories on Reddit and elsewhere to know there's no such thing as a guaranteed marriage even if you do everything right. My expectation is that GP's or his spouse might possess insight. People who's marriages I thought would go on till death (Bezos's, Gates…

Many who are / have been in bad marriages complain loudly about it. The many in good marriages rarely talk about it ("bragging"). Thus, take such stories online with a grain of salt. Especially since many are blind to their own faults, and therefore can't include them in their stories.

There are many good marriages in which at least one spouse brags about a happy (however that's defined) life of 20+ years and many bad marriages that aren't evident as such until the inevitable "he/she left me and I don't know why" post on Reddit.

I agree that it is important to take a person's examination of his/her self or his/her (ex-)spouse with a grain of salt. And while people are blind to their own faults, you're making the mistake of thinking that divorces are based on falsifiable and rational assessments. Some are. Some aren't. But one isn't likely know the true reason a long time after the fact, if at all.

Re: How fateful?

#325

Post by Dracophoenix »

tomerv wrote: post #316
Dracophoenix wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "good marriage" isn't guaranteed to be a desirable one past the wedding day. I am in no way suggesting GP's marriage is a ticking time bomb, but I've read enough stories on Reddit and elsewhere to know there's no such thing as a guaranteed marriage even if you do everything right. My expectation is that GP's or his spouse might possess insight. People who's marriages I thought would go on till death (Bezos's, Gates…

I think that's a common misunderstanding about who owns what in a marriage. I'll quote Matt Levine on this: One thing that I find a little weird about the Bezos divorce is that there are a lot of claims that it will make MacKenzie Bezos “the world’s richest woman.” I suppose there is a technical sense in which that is right, but it assumes not only that she will have a right to half of Jeff Bezos’s assets in divorce,…

This concept of marital property is speculative, if not fictional, unless both Jeff and Mackenzie made explicit agreements to co-own the shares during their marriage. Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it. If he were deposed by the SEC over alleged claims of market manipulation with Amazon stock, Mackenzie would not be the one held liable. While she may have been able to influence his purchases/selloffs as one half of the world's now-formerly richest couple, she never had ownership of the stock as a legally-recognized property right in itself (and the liabilities the may come with such ownership). She now has such a right (although I would argue that she shouldn't) as a divorcée.

Re: How fateful?

#326

Post by dragonwriter »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #325
tomerv wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a common misunderstanding about who owns what in a marriage. I'll quote Matt Levine on this: One thing that I find a little weird about the Bezos divorce is that there are a lot of claims that it will make MacKenzie Bezos “the world’s richest woman.” I suppose there is a technical sense in which that is right, but it assumes not only that she will have a right to half of Jeff Bezos’s assets in divorce,…

This concept of marital property is speculative, if not fictional, unless both Jeff and Mackenzie made explicit agreements to co-own the shares during their marriage. Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it. If he were deposed by the SEC over alleged claims of market manipulation with Amazon stock, Mackenzie would not be the one held liabl…

> I would argue this concept of marital property is a fiction

Property is a social construct; marital property no more or less than any other, and likewise no more or less a fiction.

> . Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it.

Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership.

Also, like a general partnership in that the property legally ascribed to the partnership rather than partners individually is divided among the partners as personal property at dissolution.

Re: How fateful?

#327

Post by Dracophoenix »

dragonwriter wrote: post #326
Dracophoenix wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concept of marital property is speculative, if not fictional, unless both Jeff and Mackenzie made explicit agreements to co-own the shares during their marriage. Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it. If he were deposed by the SEC over alleged claims of market manipulation with Amazon stock, Mackenzie would not be the one held liabl…

> I would argue this concept of marital property is a fiction Property is a social construct; marital property no more or less than any other, and likewise no more or less a fiction. > . Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it. Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment…

> Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership.

So pre-divorce MacKenzie could have unilaterally decided to dump Jeff's Amazon shares on the market without his permission?

She could have burnt down Bezos's Medina home to bits and he couldn't sue for damages, even if he payed for the construction, property taxes, other bills, and was sole owner of the deed?

She could have access to any separate bank accounts he owned, and blown it all?

> Also, like a general partnership in that the property legally ascribed to the partnership rather than partners individually is divided among the partners as personal property at dissolution.

A partnership in and of itself doesn't create any obligations other than the acknowledgement of said partnership. There isn't a presumption of combined ownership. A partnership is the explicit creation of a contract that both parties agree to. If a contract is voided, one is no longer required to perform any duties or continue providing resources.

In a marriage, the terms are set by the state and there is a presumption of combined ownership. Even if a prenup to the effect of "I keep what I earned, you keep what you earned" exists, a judge can ignore it.

Re: How fateful?

#328

Post by uni_rule »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #238
jnsie wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing google they'd have 6 competing dystopian nightmare programs running concurrently. All would have similar names.

And only one of them would work in Singapore for some reason.

Unexpected interactions with the river otters

Re: How fateful?

#329

Post by dragonwriter »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #327
dragonwriter wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue this concept of marital property is a fiction Property is a social construct; marital property no more or less than any other, and likewise no more or less a fiction. > . Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it. Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment…

> Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership. So pre-divorce MacKenzie could have unilaterally decided to dump Jeff's Amazon shares on the market without his permission? She could have burnt down Bezos's Medina home to bits and he couldn't sue for damages, even if he pa…

> A partnership is the explicit creation of a contract that both parties agree to.

So is a marriage. In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is.

> If a contract is voided

That’s not relevant, here. Voiding a contract is cancellation, due to a legal defect that makes it categorically invalid (if completely prohibited) or voidable at the discretion of a party (such as when one party was a child when making it); the marital case of voiding a contract is annulment, not divorce.

Divorce is termination of a contract, not voiding.

Re: How fateful?

#330

Post by Dracophoenix »

dragonwriter wrote: post #329
Dracophoenix wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership. So pre-divorce MacKenzie could have unilaterally decided to dump Jeff's Amazon shares on the market without his permission? She could have burnt down Bezos's Medina home to bits and he couldn't sue for damages, even if he pa…

> A partnership is the explicit creation of a contract that both parties agree to. So is a marriage. In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is. > If a contract is voided That’s not relevant, here. Voiding a contract is…

> In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is.

I'm aware of that and seeing as the Bezos's marriage did not have a pre-nup, Jeff was relatively fortunate. But my concern is with how marriages are treated as legal institutions apart from how commercial contracts are upheld.

In a partnership, two private parties can create a contract by themselves. The state is not involved in the creation of a contract. The state will only involve itself with the contract's enforcement or the resolution of any suits arising from its dissolution. The state works within the body of laws it's upheld, but almost all rights stated in the contract supersede the default assumptions held by the state.

When it comes to marriage, the state (via the court) is deemed its creator, enforcer, and dissolver. A divorce can only be granted under the acceptance of the state's terms. A judge can decide to ignore precedent or the upholding of a pre-nup.

Post reply on HN