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

161–170 of 421 posts

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

#161

Post by Towaway69 »

rileymat2 wrote: post #147
Towaway69 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have ransomware attacks increased in that time? Isn't the increase in attack surfaces for ransomware actors an indication of decline in software quality? Software has become incredibly complex and interdepended.

I was trying to come up with a metric and threw that out because there is also more effort in creating ransomware and software ubiquity now. Thought about CVE counts, but that has methodological problems too.

The number of update reminders is a measure that I use. Updating software has become expected, as a reminder to open the app again.

It would be nice if apps were developed as software for satellites: updating satellite software in flight is expensive, so constant updating isn't an option.

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

#162

Post by mardifoufs »

otikik wrote: post #78
bawolff wrote: post #53

> What they don’t tell you is that we already have solutions for a lot of problems, we just don’t use them. Sometimes this is because the solution is too expensive, but usually it’s because competing interests create a tragedy of the commons. If you have a solution that can't be used because it costs too much money or other societal concerns, then you don't have a solution. Part of making a solution is finding someth…

I don’t think it’s fair to mark some parts of the argument “not the real world” when the argument is a whole block. The societal changes being discussed in the article are the main proposed path to a solution, not the particular cancer cure. Yes it involves some changes in the amount of profit some people will make. Yes potentially even destabilizing capitalism somewhat. These kinds of changes might not be comfortabl…

That argument could be applied to prohibition too for example. If we just changed society enough... we could be alcohol free! Same for drug usage. But the thing is, if you have to literally change society to do something maybe it's not such a practical or useful idea.

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

#163

Post by jwiz »

smsm42 wrote: post #59
grecy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the question is at what cost? The world will be a wonderful place when schools have all the funding they need and the Air Force must hold a bake sale to pay for new fighter jets. The US spent $8,000,000,000,000 on the "war on terror" [1], while 21% of adults are illiterate [2] [1] https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar [2] https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti...

You are implying the cause of illiteracy is the lack of funds. It is not so - in fact, the very worst schools often spend per pupil the same as the very best ones, or at least very close to it. Throwing money at the problem is not the solution - it would cause the worst schools spend even more and keep churning out ignoramuses. The bad schools are bad not because they can't find money to become good but because the w…

Well, as my highschool friend said 30 years ago, "I think teachers should be paid more...just not these teachers."

If they paid teachers more, they'd have better teachers, though.

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

#164

Post by Towaway69 »

nolongerthere wrote: post #155
Towaway69 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have ransomware attacks increased in that time? Isn't the increase in attack surfaces for ransomware actors an indication of decline in software quality? Software has become incredibly complex and interdepended.

90-99% of ransomeware attacks are really just social engineering. There is no question that software is more bulletproof today than it was in 2000 when nearly every website was susceptible to simple sql-injection, OSes didn’t have any sort of built-in security or access controls.

Unfortunately the quality might be the same but we didn't have mobile phones and all sorts of other critical infrastructure depended on software.

Social engineering has also been a problem since human communication was invented.

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

#165

Post by jnsaff2 »

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.

No it's not.

The utility for the users is the same.

The lobbying power trying to make that choice is completely different.

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

#166

Post by maxbond »

nolongerthere wrote: post #148
maxbond wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given current events, I don't understand how you can hold this view? We've recently seen a truly horrifying terrorist attack, and the response was as brutal as you would expect. Surely the people who planned and executed it knew that better than we do, since presumably it's their business to know such things. Surely that's a constructive proof that this notion is mistaken?

This is a fascinating take: what do you suggest the proper response would be to the current event you referenced in light of your opinion that any response will only radicalize the local population?

First let me say, I'm not trying to make a policy prescription. I'm pointing out what I thought was a misconception about how terrorism works.

But to answer your question, I have absolutely no idea. I follow a military news YouTuber named Ryan McBeth, and something he says that makes sense to me is that effective strategies present adversaries with dilemmas rather than problems, where each option is terrible but you have no choice but to pick one. The reason terrorism is effective, to the extent that it is effective, is that no one has discovered an effective means to counter it.

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

#167

Post by WalterBright »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #122
WalterBright wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human beings aren't inherently selfish Of course they are. I am, you are, everybody is.

I recommend you read Humankind by Rutger Bregman. It disputes this notion, successfully in my opinion.

There have been many societies based on the idea that people can be convinced to be unselfish. They've all failed. Bregman has an impossible uphill battle against a vast historical record.

Reading the synopsis https://www.amazon.com/Humankind-Hopeful-History-Rutger-Breg... it appears Bregman has made a mistake. He posits that cooperation is unselfish. This is incorrect. He's right that cooperation works, but people cooperate for selfish reasons. If I grow bananas and you hunt fish, we cooperate and trade the results, and we are both better off. We cooperated for selfish reasons.

Now, if you grow fish and I just take it from you because I felt I deserved it more than you, you are going to be mad at me and might fight me. This is how it is in our selfish interests to cooperate.

> But if we believe in the reality of humanity's kindness and altruism, it will form the foundation for achieving true change in society,

Many societies have been founded on this model, with a 100% failure rate.

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

#168

Post by throwaway290 »

maxbond wrote: post #135
throwaway290 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but those rich elites themselves like to live well and somehow it turns out they when it comes to their own they really don't like to die or see their big prosperous families die. You can't rule radicalized impoverished populations if you yourself are dead. Letting them see that their target can retaliate in this way is not cheap.

Given current events, I don't understand how you can hold this view? We've recently seen a truly horrifying terrorist attack, and the response was as brutal as you would expect. Surely the people who planned and executed it knew that better than we do, since presumably it's their business to know such things. Surely that's a constructive proof that this notion is mistaken?

Remember, Hamas was openly throwing rockets at Israel and probing its defenses for years. (From outside it may sound unreal but for many years even in fancy glittering Tel Aviv people are really familiar with air defense sirens and sitting in air defense shelters because they do it a few times a year.) You can't say that about US.

So two things how I hold this view.

First in all those years Hamas didn't manage to make a dent in Israel. Which makes me really think even Hamas leaders didn't expect this attack to go this far. But it so happened Israel was unprepared with its military all busy defending illegal Jewish settlements on the West bank. Maybe they got complacent. Or a conspiracist might say Netanyahu set it all up (but I doubt it). Whatever it was, Hamas did way more damage than anyone expected so things got out of hand

And second in all these years of throwing rockets, smuggling weapons and all the stuff they were getting away with they got no serious retaliation. Paradoxically because Israel's defenses were so good. So maybe Hamas also got a bit complacent and thought they are immune camping there under civilian hospitals and schools.

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

#169

Post by maxbond »

WalterBright wrote: post #156
maxbond wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what means have you seen into this other commenter's heart to determine they are fundamentally selfish?

All people are selfish. People who give to others derive pleasure from it, and they like that pleasure. Not enough to base an economy on it, though. People soon get tired of working hard only to give the results to loafers.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question, but instead repeated your original assertion.

Let's say I declare that your observation is not true of me personally. Note that this doesn't necessitate any evidence external to me; I could introspect and discover this about myself, however you don't have the ability to "introspect" into my own mind.

How could you prove to me I'm mistaken? And please note, I am not looking for a restatement here, I understand what your view is.

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

#170

Post by oh_sigh »

Aunche wrote: post #140
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…

He doesn't even give an example of "ancient human tribes," but modern day nomads whose traditions have also developed over thousands of years. If ancient human tribes were so great at avoiding tragedy of the commons, I would be eating a mammoth steak right now.

Maybe losing mammoths wasn't actually a tragedy.
Post reply on HN