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

Rethinking the Luddites

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#501

Post by failuser »

SoftTalker wrote: post #176
failuser wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 oligarchs can own everything and trade among each other to fulfill their megaprojects. Does a pharaoh care who built his pyramid? Or spaceship? The workers will still be needed to laugh at their suffering. Unless robots get better than humans even at that.

Where are the pharaohs today? That sort of social imbalance leads inevitably to revolution. Always has. It's not sustainable.

Wait, so you think that pharaohs were overthrown by a popular uprising? Xi, Kim and Putin sit pretty sturdily in their sits.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#502

Post by klik99 »

avgcorrection wrote: post #479

> Brian Merchant’s new book, “Blood in the Machine,” argues that Luddism stood not against technology per se but for the rights of workers in the face of automation. And this isn't common knowledge?

for people outside of tech, apparently not. I get it - all they know is this thing they've been called many times and just see it's a pejorative. It's a little grating when he says it was misused intentionally by tech overlords to paint concerned people as anti-progress (he says this in the 99% interview), but I get where he's coming from - some people use just as an insult to throw around, whether or not they know the source.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#503

Post by __loam »

klik99 wrote: post #459
__loam wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny this guy was worried about the luddites hurting people when several luddites were ultimately gunned down.

Luddites were very careful not to hurt any people (I think in one case they were cornered by defensive action, but that was clearly in self-defense), and they even only targeted specific machines they had problems with, leaving all other machines intact. But just the same I don't agree with their methods since any violence is easily co-opted to paint them as bad and ultimately hurts the goals they were trying to achi…

Violence certainly wasn't the first thing they tried here

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#504

Post by barrysteve »

klik99 wrote: post #453

I heard Brian Merchant on 99% Invisible and this take is slight historical revisionism, but I'm ok with that. It's revisionist because he's conflating the earlier movement when workers tried to negotiate with factory owners and organize with the Luddite movement. True - the failure of the first movement led to Ludditism out of desperation, but the groups are separate. Luddite literally is named after Ned Ludd smashin…

Can I slighty revise your comment and take out the bit where it says you're okay with revisionism?

Talk about a slippery slope...

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#505

Post by [deleted] »

talent_deprived wrote: post #153
danuker wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring. I see many problems with this statement: - Is a new robot-only company fairer than firing humans at an old company? - Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? - Should there be a robot tax? What is a robot? Is…

> Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? Yes. AI generates sameness on a good day, and comical gibberish on a bad day, that will never change because, AI isn't human. Sameness will drive customers to look for human made stuff, gibberish will drive them away.

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#506

Post by mullingitover »

nemo44x wrote: post #456
myth_drannon wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know we are not in feudal system right now? Propaganda machine is telling us we are in a democracy, but all I see is oligarchy controlling the system.

It’s called the iron law of oligarchy.[1] All democratic organizations decay into oligarchies - a minority group of elites that are in control. So the question becomes who gets to join that elite and how do people get cycled out of it. When there isn’t a sufficient cycling (people who shouldn’t be a part any longer remain - nepotism etc; people that don’t deserve to be a part are invited - diversity for diversities s…

Hah, and go figure:

> Later Michels migrated to Italy and joined Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party, as he believed this was the next legitimate step of modern societies.

"Iron law" isn't a law in any real sense here, other that it was one fascist guy calling it that. Still, there's a valid point:

> By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes

This really shines a light on the innovative system that Australia uses[1], which I think helps mitigate the non-participation factor: voting in Australia is compulsory. It's your civic duty to participate in elections and everyone is automatically registered when they reach the age of 18.

Overall I think that it's hard to make any 'iron laws' in modern times, because these laws were based on looking back rather than forward. A lot of these are based on assumptions that technology wouldn't change, but that's not the case - modern telecommunications have moved us past the age where information only traveled as fast as a horse could carry you. For 99.99% of human history it was totally impossible for a direct democracy to function, but with instant, global communications and information access that's no longer a safe assumption.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#507

Post by adwn »

fatherzine wrote: post #478
adwn wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The McDonald's hot coffee lady case wasn't frivolous. No, this isn't "twisted in our living memory". The people who think that the lawsuit is frivolous haven't forgotten that the coffee was hotter than other fast-food coffee, or rather, it has no bearing on their assessment. Coffee is a hot beverage, and it's in your personal responsibility not to put a flimsy cup containing a hot beverage between your legs, especi…

I would encourage you to read the facts, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaura... They sold 180–190 °F coffee, with a lid, to a 79yo lady at a drive-through window. She was sitting in her car and spilled the coffee in her lap while trying to remove the lid. I don't have an opinion on the legal ramifications, but the setting has 'horrific accident waiting to happen' written all over it.

> I would encourage you to read the facts [...]

I already have, thank you.

> They sold 180–190 °F coffee, with a lid, to a 79yo lady at a drive-through window.

I know. That "79yo lady" is an adult who is liable for her own actions. Coffee is hot, duh, I would expect someone of that age to know that. McDonald's isn't responsible for babysitting people who should know better than to squeeze hot beverages between their legs.

> the setting has 'horrific accident waiting to happen' written all over it

Not more than handing someone knife and fork. If you go out for dinner and you cut yourself in the finger, or you stab an eye out because you forgot how to use cutlery, is that also the restaurant's fault? Should they give everyone dull knifes and spoons only, just in case?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#508

Post by chromoblob »

Ygg2 wrote: post #408
davidgoudet wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is political my friend.

When everything is X, nothing is X.

When everything exists, nothing exists?

There are no universal properties?

A non-trivial universal property for a domain asserts something non-trivial about everything in the domain. You think 'political' is a trivial property?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#509

Post by chromoblob »

brvsft wrote: post #439
zlg_codes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to characterize my approach to technology as "informed carefulness". So maybe "I'm a cautious adopter of technology. I adopt what works, what improves my life, and respects my rights." The violation of people's trust through the use of telemetry is precisely what turned me skeptical of modern day stuff. There's a lot of stuff that I would probably use, if it wasn't hellbent on learning the color of my underwea…

This reminds me that I find it hilarious when they ask permission to collect more data on you so they can make the ads "more relevant." This is close to their version of mutual respect, "We'll show you the ads you WANT to see."

Note the ambiguity: more relevant ads as profitable for the ad provider vs. offers more relevant (useful) to you.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#510

Post by galaxyLogic »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #357
galaxyLogic wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Adams is wrong. Constitution was made (I believe) to deter immoral people who would like to get rid of the constitution, who would love to establish a dictatorship, who would love to force a specific religion on all of us. Moral people don't really need laws, laws exist to deter crime. Frankly I don't get what John Adams was trying say? Can someone explain?

spitballing: laws exist to take care of outliers, they cannot regulate a society of people who are, on average, looking to exploit each other for personal gain.

The reason outliers are outliers is because of laws. Laws have an effect on people's behavior, no?
Post reply on HN