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

The Internet Made Me Sad Today

raganwald.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–186 of 186 posts

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#181

Post by rmc »

janardanyri wrote: post #176
rmc wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been complaining that society will turn into "Idiocracy" (or similar) for generations. The Roman satirist Jeuvanal complained (in 100 CE) that modern people only cared for "bread and circuses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses

As both your link and the broader scope of European history indicate, Roman society of 100 CE was in fact in the midst of a many-generations-long decline into irrelevance, so this is perhaps an unintentionally apt citation.

Well that depends. Comparing Europe now and 100, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 years ago makes now appear much better on various metrics: political & military stability, human rights, women's rights, life expantency, death from disease and plague, famine, social equality, the wealth of the lower 50% of the population, gay rights, racism, manual labour, religious toleration, etc. etc.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#182

Post by tlogan »

rmc wrote: post #167
tlogan wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.

People have been complaining that society will turn into "Idiocracy" (or similar) for generations. The Roman satirist Jeuvanal complained (in 100 CE) that modern people only cared for "bread and circuses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses

The history goes in waves... The great Roman culture was in generational long decline and eventually replaced by "Dark ages". "Idiocracy" is basically something like "Dark ages".

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#183

Post by fleitz »

Drbble wrote: post #171
tweak2live wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None, whatsoever. But what alternative do the "best and the brightest" have? After all, in order to keep being "the best and the brightest" they do need to pay rent (and have an occasional steak dinner). What value is there in educating if one can simply purchase social capital when one needs it? Exhibit A: http://www.facebook.com/BPTeamUSA Exhibit B: http://www.altria.com/en/cms/Responsibility/investing-in-com...

Interesting question: for younger folks who weren't aware of the Altria name change, does anyone think Altria is not a criminal enterprise?

What does criminal enterprise even mean?

Mostly everyone is a criminal, if you've gotten a city parking ticket you're a criminal.

If you've let your meter run out but didn't get caught it's still criminal. Didn't wear your seatbelt? Criminal.

Were you having a bad day but when you talked to the city clerk you told them it was going well? You're a criminal.

Altria sells a product that is harmful to people's health while providing other benefits, like most other products including car manufactures, coffee shops, etc.

Does Altria break a criminal statute? It's pretty much inevitable that they do.

Would I characterize them as a criminal enterprise? No.

Some people are far more concerned about living life than prolonging death. If you don't like cigarettes don't smoke.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#184

Post by cpher »

patio11 wrote: post #39

You're looking at remnant inventory. Inventory (advertiser speak for "a page view plus a slot available on that page which we could sell an ad against") are a lot like cuts of meat. Some are worth a lot of money. Some are not, and end up getting sold to be turned into fertilizer or paste to infect cows with all matter of diseases. Things that tend to make inventory worth more money: 1) Better matching algorithms. Thi…

Patrick, thank you for your well-thought-out response. I appreciate your longer posts because you tease out things I hadn't thought of. From now on, I dub you the Dennis Miller of HN (apologies to those who don't get the reference). I think I have to re-read your posts 2-3 times to fully understand them.

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#185

Post by crusso »

rbarooah wrote: post #177
crusso wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility". I'm reacting mostly to those two words since they have legal ramifications. You tell me what you mean by "take responsibility", and I'll tell you whether or not I think that there should be a business or binding legal relationship before someone should be compelled to "take responsibility".

Is there no room in your worldview for values that aren't imposed by force?

Of course. Quite the contrary, I believe that very few of your worldview values should need to be imposed by force.

That's really a change of subject, though. You said "take responsibility". In our society today, "take responsibility" has connotations, mostly legal. Or the next line of reasoning is if people should "take responsibility", then the government should enforce it with laws and police action.

Yesterday, a married couple emailed me for advice on a condo that they're looking to purchase where I just bought one. I don't know them. I don't owe them anything. I don't even feel any social pressure since it's a vacation area and I likely will never meet or see them. However, I took about 30 minutes to write up a lot of details on what I had experienced in my purchase and gave them my best advice I had.

What I resent is someone telling me that I had some real "responsibility" to do so. I did it because I'm a friendly person and I wanted to. Not because I had someone else's tyrannical view of enforced egalitarianism.

My reasoning all ties back to Google. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. They have a responsibility to keep the contracts that they enter. Their responsibility to their shareholders might include showing useful dinosaur information in their AdWords to someone researching dinosaurs because they want to look clueful. They have no moral responsibility to do so. They have no legal responsibility to do so.

That's why I asked you. What do you mean by "take responsibility"?

Re: The Internet Made Me Sad Today

#186

Post by janardanyri »

rmc wrote: post #181
janardanyri wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As both your link and the broader scope of European history indicate, Roman society of 100 CE was in fact in the midst of a many-generations-long decline into irrelevance, so this is perhaps an unintentionally apt citation.

Well that depends. Comparing Europe now and 100, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 years ago makes now appear much better on various metrics: political & military stability, human rights, women's rights, life expantency, death from disease and plague, famine, social equality, the wealth of the lower 50% of the population, gay rights, racism, manual labour, religious toleration, etc. etc.

As tlogan's response notes, the distinction to draw in judging 100CE-era commentary is not between Europe in 100CE and now, but rather between Europe in 100CE and the ensuing decades and centuries, which demonstrated that the naysayers of 100CE Europe were completely justified.

That things then swung back upward again is cold comfort to the ancient Romans and does not demonstrate that things could not swing downward for our civilization.

Post reply on HN