Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why Is Everything Declining?

news.ycombinator.com

181–190 of 835 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why Is Everything Declining?

#181
> I’m aware of pinker’s general argument that many numbers are getting better.

I reject the entire premise on the grounds that a list of supposedly bad things without any attempt to compare it to something proves absolutely nothing, no matter how large the list is. If you’re aware of Pinker’s argument, why are you ignoring it? Why not explore it, follow up on the stats and see if he’s right?

It does seem like a lot of people are wallowing in bad news and convincing themselves to be hopeless, several threads have gone by HN recently along those lines, and I can think of friends and family members that are stuck on this too. I have no idea if it’s gotten worse, but seems plausible the pandemic and lower rates of in-person social activity combined with some bumpy politics recently combined with social media and news cycles that successfully engage people in outrage 24-7, seems like all those things may very well increase the perception that things are worse, regardless of the reality.

> Anyone else have other example?

This is explicitly seeking confirmation bias. Why not instead solicit counter-examples? Good news is occurring all the time, and for whatever reason it gets lets attention online and in the media. I highly recommend consciously seeking out good news in your life, it may answer your question.

Re: Ask HN: Why Is Everything Declining?

#182
Anything bad that happens around the world is now spread instantly via social media and is messing with people’s heads. Good news never gets attention, only the worst. Over the past half decade or so smartphones have reached saturation. Hundreds of millions of people who never learned to filter what they see online are experiencing the same craziness many of us first saw in the 90s for the first time. It’s the eternal September to its final extreme.

This has infected society in a way that is similar to what happened when TV reached saturation in the 1960s. By the end of the 60s everyone was convinced the world was going to hell because every time they turned on the TV it was war and hysteria. That’s what gets ratings. But it was just a blip in retrospect. BTW, watching Easy Rider is hysterical - truly clueless Boomers in their late 20s bitching about the good old days. They basically sound exactly like this post.

Then a new generation grew up knowing how to filter what they saw on TV and things cooled down for a while. I’ve always assumed the term “YouTube” was chosen because of its similarity to “BoobTube”. By the time I was in my teens in the 80s, we all knew what we saw on TV was mostly crap. Remember your mother bitching about the “garbage” on TV?

I feel we’re experiencing another social shift of similar proportions. Constant negative news and inability to filter is messing with perceptions.

The facts are that the air is cleaner than it has been in generations and EVs now make up more than 5% of the market and growing, which will lead to even cleaner air for our children. Water out of the tap is still the best in the world for the vast majority of the country. Crime is the lowest it’s been in decades. Children are safer now than ever. When I grew up, parents beat their children as a matter of course (I was for sure), now that’s considered the abuse it is. Illiteracy is a thing of the past as literally every man woman and child has what were once considered super computers in their pockets which need basic levels of literacy to use. And each smartphone is able to access any piece of information and tutorial one can think of regardless of socioeconomic status. Bigotry like racism, sexism and homophobia is finally being noticed and called out as is abuse of law enforcement. All things which used to be hidden away is now being pulled out into the light of day. Not all of it is pretty, but just because we can finally see it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there before. It was and it was worse. Ever talk to your grandparents and were shocked by their casual prejudices?

So yeah, we’re in a trough of low public morale, but it will get better. I’m as shocked as most of us who helped create the internet as we know it, in how everything seems to have gone sideways instead of the universal education and enlightenment we were expecting. But it’ll happen. Generation Z is already almost immune from the bullshit they see on their phones and are taking advantage of all the opportunities it provides to educate themselves. It’s amazing to see.

Re: Ask HN: Why Is Everything Declining?

#185
Scale, mostly. Knock-on effects of greed and power, I suppose.

Individuals and companies operating at some level of scale and focused primarily on revenue discover that "giving a shit" is both costly and unnecessary, as the mass market doesn't care and will buy anyway. Artists care, which is why they're a pain in the ass and get kicked to the curb as soon as money grabs the power.

It's "difficult" to deliver a quality service/support experience if you have 2 billion daily users of your product. I'm not excusing Facebook, but that scale makes everything a hell of a lot harder than "you" think it is, and therefore they'll either mess it up, because that's unavoidable, or they'll just optimize for revenue, and they were never artists anyway. Applies to Google and Microsoft, too. Steve Jobs was an anomaly.

Nearly nonexistent barrier to entry in most respects in most areas. The noise, however that may manifest, vastly (vastly, vastly, vastly) outstrips the signal. If you assume 90% of everything is crap (a generous and optimistic assessment), and there is 10,000 times more stuff than there used to be, well, that's a whole lot more crap.

When your company can basically not fail, and has its fingers in everything due to acquisitions and consolidations and whatever, again, unless you're an artist, and you aren't, caring increases costs unnecessarily because the market doesn't care, and neither do you, so you don't bother.

If you are a probably underfunded law enforcement agency (or school) who basically has to accept the recruits you can find because nobody wants to do the job, because the scale and scope of what you're dealing with (ie: too many people, too many problems) is hellish, and there's no clear guidance on what or how to manage it, much less improve it, well, it can't end well.

Obligatory Kali Yuga here.

"Hard problems that no one is bothering to understand clearly, without getting folks on the same page regarding why it's a problem, what solutions should be sought, and why." may be another was of looking at it.

Re: Ask HN: Why Is Everything Declining?

#186

> Software seems to be overrun by a mentality that any future cost is worth it to save even 1 minute of development time… From the instant the idea to do something pops into management’s heads, or is explained to them by sales (who heard it from a customer), the clock is ticking. Actually developing the software necessary is just an irritating overhead. Something to be reduced to near zero. A one-dimensional “scalar”…

I dont understand why they dont understand the concept that goes like this "If we do it this way, the next feature will take 10% longer, and it will cost 20% more to rectify. When we compound this our feature rate will grind to near 0, or you'll have to hire infinite head count. Your roadmap is 12 months long, and I have reason to believe this is the fastest path to that set of asks, and also sets us up for an excell…

I don’t want to appear too jaded, I consider myself a realist. One component of this collapse of measurement into a single scalar is that many of us (us being those who either engineer software or are close to it, and the software lifecycle) need to do better at explaining the trade-offs. However, I would be surprised it even with better explanations the outcome, the reckoning, is any different. How many quarters ahead does your management plan? How many years? Average tenure for a Chief Revenue Officer is less than 4 years for example.

Re: Ask HN: Why Is Everything Declining?

#187
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>being a grown-ass adult in pajamas out in public I'm with you about all the other things but people wearing whatever clothes they want to affects you in literally no way shape or form.

Broken window theory of dress. Poorly dressed uncaring people attract more of that behavior and the poor attitude bleeds into other interactions.

How is me not caring what you think of my attire a bad attitude? Fulfilling your aesthetic desires is not one of my goals and, frankly, expecting otherwise seems like something of a bad attitude.

Re: Ask HN: Why Is Everything Declining?

#189
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>being a grown-ass adult in pajamas out in public I'm with you about all the other things but people wearing whatever clothes they want to affects you in literally no way shape or form.

Broken window theory of dress. Poorly dressed uncaring people attract more of that behavior and the poor attitude bleeds into other interactions.

But how far do you go? Using that approach, people 100 years ago wearing a suit and tie and a hat would probably want to ban what we wear today, on the grounds of broken glass theory. Yet we are (I presume) law abiding citizens here, etc.

Re: Ask HN: Why Is Everything Declining?

#190
I agree with other commenters that rosy retrospection may be at play, and that in many regards the world today is better than ever before.

That said, you might enjoy Scott Alexander's essay "Meditations on Moloch", describing how many aspects of our society are multipolar traps / races to the bottom: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

A sample:

  Imagine a capitalist in a cutthroat industry. He employs workers in a sweatshop to sew garments, which he sells at minimal profit. Maybe he would like to pay his workers more, or give them nicer working conditions. But he can’t, because that would raise the price of his products and he would be outcompeted by his cheaper rivals and go bankrupt. Maybe many of his rivals are nice people who would like to pay their workers more, but unless they have some kind of ironclad guarantee that none of them are going to defect by undercutting their prices they can’t do it.

  Like the rats, who gradually lose all values except sheer competition, so companies in an economic environment of sufficiently intense competition are forced to abandon all values except optimizing-for-profit or else be outcompeted by companies that optimized for profit better and so can sell the same service at a lower price.
Post reply on HN