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

We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

erikmcclure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 421 posts

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#81

Post by maxbond »

mikewarot wrote: post #36

I'd like to point out that computer security was solved in the 1970s after lessons were learned by the Military during the Viet Nam conflict. We've blamed everything except our operating systems, which are fundamentally flawed because they don't incorporate Capability Based Security[1]. Things that are not capability based security , but people seem to think they are, include: App Permission flags on your smartphone…

Every major operating system has a capability model (eg SELinux or Group Policies). Mobile operating systems have had capabilities from the jump, but still get hacked.

(That being said, capabilities are great, we should use them and they do help. If you're not familiar with this pattern, look it up, it's worth knowing.)

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#82

Post by eru »

croes wrote: post #37
eru wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty silly. The 'economic race to the bottom' is exactly how we can all afford microwave ovens in the first place. Of course, you can make a special case for microwave ovens, and we could afford them to be slightly more expensive. But we need the general cost cutting and optimization in the economy to drive progress.

Yes, but then we get useless microwaves and in the end dangerous microwaves.

Who buys those useless microwaves?

Most gadgets I ever bought were far above legally required minimum requirements. Ie those minimum requirements were not a binding constraint. Why would that suddenly change?

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#83

Post by Scarblac »

jnsaff2 wrote: post #56
kevmo314 wrote: post #23

> We could be running fiber-optic cable to every house in America, and we even know how much it would cost. That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. Of course we can fix everything, we could also do everything in the universe, but the question is at what cost? So here's my modest proposal: > I am here to remind you that it will only get worse unless we do something. The problem isn't painful enough. Have you…

> That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. Is it though? Or is it that there is not enough profit for someone to make from running fiber to every home? To be clear I’m not trying to lead with the question but actually ask something and that the difference might be useful.

There are homes to where it can be done profitably, homes to where it can't.

It can probably be done profitably to every home, but it's even more profitable to do it to only the easier homes.

Collective action could make a law that only allows companies to lay fiber if they do it to every home.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#84

Post by quickthrower2 »

Gigachad wrote: post #60
jnsaff2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. Is it though? Or is it that there is not enough profit for someone to make from running fiber to every home? To be clear I’m not trying to lead with the question but actually ask something and that the difference might be useful.

That’s the same as it costs too much.

For governments and infrastructure they don’t need to make a profit they can subsidise. That is somewhat the point of a government. Costs too much is still an objection but “no immediate profit” isn’t.

Whether that is true for fibre, I don’t know it is a complex topic.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#85

Post by panick21_ »

nmilo wrote: post #50

David Graeber in Utopia of Rules : > "When historians write the epitaph for neoliberalism, they will have to conclude that it was the form of capitalism that systematically prioritized political imperatives over economic ones. That is: given a choice between a course of action that will make capitalism seem like the only possible economic system, and one that will make capitalism actually be a more viable long-term e…

[flagged]

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#86

Post by hackerlight »

arp242 wrote: post #58

For a lot of things the problem is essentially a problem of scale. Those "ancient human tribes" who did so much better were tribes of 100-200 people, and it's actually not that hard to "do the right thing" with a relatively small group of people. Blaming it on the two-party system is such a short-sighted US-centric point of view. There are plenty of countries with other types of democracies, and they have roughly sim…

Problem is that incentives, especially financial incentives, have so much control over our democracy. Why don't we fix the housing crisis? Because homeowners will vote out politicians who reduce their house value. Same answer for why we don't fix global warming, farming subsidies, carried interest loophole.

For everything wrong like this, there's a small but determined group of people who will defend the status quo, versus a much larger majority who actually do want to fix things but this majority has a political will that is diluted and disorganized and can't be concentrated into political leverage. So in practice the smaller group has the power.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#87

Post by cbozeman »

kevmo314 wrote: post #23

> We could be running fiber-optic cable to every house in America, and we even know how much it would cost. That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. Of course we can fix everything, we could also do everything in the universe, but the question is at what cost? So here's my modest proposal: > I am here to remind you that it will only get worse unless we do something. The problem isn't painful enough. Have you…

This post is mind-boggling to me...

> > We could be running fiber-optic cable to every house in America, and we even know how much it would cost.

> That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much.

No it doesn't, and we already paid for it at least four times over. The large-scale ISPs (and even small-scale ones) have been given $400,000,000,000 by Congress since the 1990s until now to bring broadband Internet to people in America. They still didn't get it done. They didn't get it done because they used the money to buy back stock and give themselves bonuses after wiring up a few hundred thousand homes at most: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5...

And the reason we paid for it at least four times over, is because the Pentagon commissioned a study some time ago on the amount of money required to bring a strand of fiber-optic cable to every home in America. They estimated it to be around $50,000,000,000 to $100,000,000,000.

There are a lot more problems we can solve with more severe punishments and more certainty of being punished. We can solve even more with re-instituting shame in our society. This idea that nothing is shameful is not only disgusting, but objectively stupid... and we can see where it's led us.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#88

Post by eru »

waterproof wrote: post #48
eru wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty silly. The 'economic race to the bottom' is exactly how we can all afford microwave ovens in the first place. Of course, you can make a special case for microwave ovens, and we could afford them to be slightly more expensive. But we need the general cost cutting and optimization in the economy to drive progress.

Yes, the problem here is that capitalism is good at some things (making microwaves cheap) and not others (dealing with externalities). We’ve let it be the dominant force shaping “progress” for quite some time, so we’ve made progress on a lot is things capitalism is good at solving. In the meantime we’re also backsliding or stagnant on various issues that capitalism can’t address alone. The pro- and anti-capitalist si…

If you are worried about externalities, either look into Coasian bargaining or slap the obvious Pigovian tax on (or do a cap-and-trade scheme).

The latter has worked really well against acid rain. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program

No need to intervene further to prevent some 'evil' race to the bottom. Just narrowly address exactly the externality in question, and stop there. Compare https://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#89

Post by phantompeace »

zmgsabst wrote: post #51
xboxnolifes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the people fighting against these things are not feeling the pain. Many people in my family are some degree of anti-vaccine / masking mandates. I can guarantee you that if a single close family member ended up hospitalized due to covid, their tune would do a fast 180. All of their beliefs are based on whether someone they care about had something happen to them.

That sounds like a stereotype — “people who disagree with me are just dumb and emotional!”

I didn’t see it that way - I think they have a valid point. I know people personally affected by deaths in their family due to the virus and I know people who caught and fought it like it was nothing, so I know exactly what the poster is getting at.

When it hits your loved ones, you start to take it more seriously. Wearing a mask and socially distancing doesn’t matter if it means not losing another family member. Conversely, if you experience just a minor cold, you start questioning all the media you’ve seen about the death rates and this and that which can definitely lead you to thinking everyone’s exaggerating the whole thing for a reason unknown to you.

I’m not anti vax at all (studied biomedical science) but I do see how people can be pushed towards having those views, even subconsciously, through highly manipulated algorithms that can use emotions to extract content in the form of comments, reaction videos, memes etc from real people. Come to think of it, AI has been milking humans for content for years.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#90

Post by abroadwin »

arp242 wrote: post #58

For a lot of things the problem is essentially a problem of scale. Those "ancient human tribes" who did so much better were tribes of 100-200 people, and it's actually not that hard to "do the right thing" with a relatively small group of people. Blaming it on the two-party system is such a short-sighted US-centric point of view. There are plenty of countries with other types of democracies, and they have roughly sim…

100-200, you say? Sounds familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
Post reply on HN