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

331–340 of 421 posts

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

#331

Post by smsm42 »

jwiz wrote: post #163
smsm42 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Over the years, I have reads dozens of articles from young enthusiastic teachers coming into bad schools with the starry eyes and the determination to fix it all. The system inevitably chews them up and spits out a jaded exhausted cynic. Has nothing to do with the lack of salary.

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

#332

Post by smsm42 »

tempestn wrote: post #141
smsm42 wrote: post #79

It is adorable when a person who knows a lot about some things decides that he knows everything about all things, all problems are simple to solve, just do this and that, and the reason all problems in the world aren't solved yet is because all other people just stupid and for some stupid reason refuse to do obvious things that are so clear to this person. I guess this is where the different between a lot of knowledg…

I think you have some valid criticisms of the article, but they'd probably be better received without the condescending tone. (For example, calling someone "adorable" sarcastically is guaranteed to elicit defensiveness IMO.)

Well, I think the approach taken by the author - all dolutions are known and easy and people are just stupid for not just doing the obvious - deserves it, for failing to ask - and even better, answer - the obvious question of why nobody else saw it before and fixed if if it were so easy.

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

#333

Post by insickness »

littlestymaar wrote: post #299
insickness wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing a totalitarian government as the solution to homelessness supports the original commenter's claim rather than detracts from it.

If a totalitarian state that doesn't care about its people at all and cannot even manage to properly feed its population can do it, then surely the biggest economy in the world can do it too.

The true conditions of poverty in North Korea are shrouded in secrecy, with reports of famine, starvation, and human rights violations. The extent of homelessness is unknown, but defectors' stories don't paint a good picture. Homelessness affects children ("Kotjebi") and elderly individuals, often abandoned due to an inability to support them. The government denies their existence, and homeless individuals are rounded up, their destination unknown.

https://borgenproject.org/homelessness-in-north-korea/

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

#334

Post by michaelmrose »

jdietrich wrote: post #213
michaelmrose wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the revenue model be something like $50-$100 per household for the next 20 years to cover principle and interest? Assuming 50k households and 85% uptake and 50 per month is 510M 100 is about a billion.

98% of Americans have access to fixed-line broadband, but only 62% actually have it. A significant proportion are fine with just having mobile and a small but fairly stable minority simply have no interest in using the internet at all. There are certainly some remaining connection gaps in remote rural communities, but universal fiber coverage is the least cost-effective solution to that problem. https://itif.org/publ…

I had a conversation as an agent with a customer wanting to cut internet access in favor of just having people use their phones. She was confused by the fact that she thought the experience she had by using her fixed wired internet to provide wifi access to her phones was automagically a function of the devices themselves.

While slightly slow walking the process and explaining the disadvantages of this I manually shut down the connection to the modem without actually disconnecting the internet service. Her kids had successfully vetoed the operation before we could complete the disconnection.

Pew says of those who rely only on a smartphone rather than a broadband connection only 45% feel a phone does everything they need was true and only 23% said that was the most import reason. Other popular reasons included unacceptable speed, cost, and perhaps most relevant the 22% that said other options simply weren't available.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-techn...

I don't think its a stretch to imagine that uptake of fast fiber might be slightly higher than the 73% (not 62) with Home Broadband internet given that many have options that are both piss poor and expensive.

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

#335

Post by Aunche »

Fluorescence wrote: post #284
Aunche wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mammoths were an easy protein source for ancient people that were hunted into extinction. This is optimizing for short term profit.

I believe it was mainly climate change and loss of habitat during glacial retreat that caused Mammoth and other mega-fauna to die out. Human hunting was likely a minor contributor and nothing like the industrial slaughter of bison.

There is still plenty of tundra in Canada and Siberia where mammoths could still live today. Megafauna survived several cycles of climate change. They went extinct during the cycle when humans arrived.

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

#336

Post by panick21_ »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #112
panick21_ wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.

I'm talking about classical-liberal economic theory, mostly Austrian and Chicago school.

That is still wrong. It more correct for Chicago but its not remotely true for Austrian school.

The whole point that made the Austrian school different from the Neoclassical approach used by for example Walras or Jevons was that they DID NOT think about micro economics as pure utility optimization.

The point of their approach is not to claim that all individuals are self interested, rather that a dynamic market situation can lead to a good outcome whatever desire the person has. It doesn't fundamentally matter if a person buys porn for himself or if he feeds the homeless. That's of course morally different, but a difference in the underlying economics. That why there is a strong emphasis on subjective theory of value in Austrian economics.

But of course simply empirically speaking most people first look out for themselves and their family and friends. Not sure why that would be controversial. And that is what Austrian economics also assumed, but its called self-interest and not selfishness.

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

#337

Post by panick21_ »

defrost wrote: post #125
panick21_ wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because, unlike what classical-liberal economic theory stipulates, human beings aren't inherently selfish. If you actually knew anything about the history of classical liberalism you wouldn't perpetuate this nonsensical stereotype. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Objectivism.

A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest. To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness.

> A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest.

That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up.

The classical liberal tradition always had a strong association and interest in English Common Law and never asserted individual action is above the law, exactly the opposite is the case. The Law very foundation that classical liberal build on.

That's why there is a whole field of economics called 'Economics & Law' that goes back a long time.

> To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness.

The factor that inhibits selfishness is the law. But you are correct, no classical liberal thinker thought people should be punished for being selfish in of itself.

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

#338

Post by tmaly »

me_me_me wrote: post #301
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> biden is barely capable to string two sentences together. A speech impediment is not necessarily an impediment to governance ability. Please, criticise him for the things he's actually done wrong (being a politician, I'm sure those are many), not for a life-long disability.

Speach impediment? He is old. He keeps forgetting things around him, looses his thought mid sentence. Was caught with cue card written for a 'child'[0], his 'handler' on many occasions whisk him away when he starts rambling [1]. I don't know how people are unable to acknowledge basic fact you can see for yourself. Would you like to be in a car driven by Biden? Or a company run by trump? > Please, criticise him for th…

Curious to hear how you would solve these issues.

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

#339

Post by tmaly »

It seems companies use to be about more than profits.

At one point they appeared to contribute to the social good.

There was some shift and now everything is about eking out every last penny of profit.

My dad use to tell me about going to Woodstock in 1969. It seemed somewhat spontaneous.

I had a friend that went to the Woodstock concert in 1999. He described it as a complete hell hole. Everything seems to be turning to crap for the sake of profit.

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

#340

Post by charcircuit »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #318
charcircuit wrote: post #14

>It happened because the people writing the image parsers made an incredibly stupid mistake and then didn’t bother testing it, because the software industry doesn’t bother with QA anymore. I too remember the good old days when software used to be written without security vulnerabilities, especially in media format parsers. Oh wait, that never existed. In fact in the old days people cared even less about security.

In the oldest days, we had formal verification of software. That didn't seem to stick around after Microsoft took over the PC world.

I don't think there was ever a time this was true industry wide.
Post reply on HN