Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
blakemasters.tumblr.com
Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#2If you haven't actually read Kaczynski you should. His ideas about goals are interesting, but probably more important are his ideas about how technology inevitably leads to the loss of freedom.
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#3If you haven't actually read Kaczynski you should. His ideas about goals are interesting, but probably more important are his ideas about how technology inevitably leads to the loss of freedom.
While reading him, remember the professors, grad students, computer store owners, etc. that he killed and injured. Prof Angelakos at Berkeley did a lot of great RF engineering work.
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#4If you haven't actually read Kaczynski you should. His ideas about goals are interesting, but probably more important are his ideas about how technology inevitably leads to the loss of freedom.
Could you give a quick summary of how technology inevitably leads to loss of freedom?
I understand that this is often the case, but is it always necessarily the case? Ie. Is it a universal law that "Technology leads to loss of freedom"?
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#5Here's my "secret" I believe to be true.
Rule of law makes countries rich. Rule of law foster cooperation and trust in societies. People can trust authorities and each other.
Democracies don't foster trust. Instead, they ferment disrespect and corruption. Politicians make law to gain vote. They don't care about long term consequences. They want pork for their district, not efficient funding. That lead to distrust, fear, and non-cooperation. People wouldn't help each other if they think they're going to get screwed or the courts can't help make it right.
Judges are the one who are immune to democratic pressure, yet they make ruling that even politicians will follow. If they don't, they destroy the consent of the people. They destroy trust in the law.
Therefore, western nations are powerful and rich in spite of democracy and elected officials. They are held together by independent judges and jurors.
Signapore and South Korea like to believe that their interventions help. Maybe that's not true at all. Perhaps, they achieve their wealth through not being so corrupted.
This leads to a prediction:
China and India will never be as prosperous as Japan, South Korea, the United States, or Western Europe if their bureaucracies are inefficient and corrupt.
How will this manifest? Their purchasing power will always be lower. Their military will be defeated in wars. They will never be as innovative. Maybe, they will never win any football championship. Maybe their GDP will never quite dwarf the US.
Or maybe they will surpass ours, in spite of the corruption and evilness of their officials. If they didn't in the next 20 years, I will consider myself right.
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#6Here's my "secret" I believe to be true. Rule of law makes countries rich. Rule of law foster cooperation and trust in societies. People can trust authorities and each other. Democracies don't foster trust. Instead, they ferment disrespect and corruption. Politicians make law to gain vote. They don't care about long term consequences. They want pork for their district, not efficient funding. That lead to distrust, fe…
Sorry but that is just nonsense.
Disrespect and corruption will exist as long as human ambition exists. It is not unique to democracy as is demonstrated every day in places like China or India. And of course politicians will make laws to gain votes. That is the whole point of democracy.
What people don't get is politicians are a perfect reflection of society. For better or worse.
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#7Here's my "secret" I believe to be true. Rule of law makes countries rich. Rule of law foster cooperation and trust in societies. People can trust authorities and each other. Democracies don't foster trust. Instead, they ferment disrespect and corruption. Politicians make law to gain vote. They don't care about long term consequences. They want pork for their district, not efficient funding. That lead to distrust, fe…
> Rule of law makes countries rich. Rule of law foster cooperation and trust in societies. People can trust authorities and each other.
I don't think that part of your thesis is too controversial. The big idea of common law, for example, is that courts try to make their decisions reasonably consistent with previous decisions, not because they think that this will necessarily lead to the best decisions each time, but because this makes the law predictable. Predictable laws are an important part of a good business environment.
(Laws with low overhead are also important, mind you. This is why an AP1000 nuclear power plant made in China costs so much less than one built in the US or Europe, even though it's the same damn plant. The overhead of dealing with the government in a very heavyweight regulatory environment is a huge factor in cost and speed.)
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#8If you haven't actually read Kaczynski you should. His ideas about goals are interesting, but probably more important are his ideas about how technology inevitably leads to the loss of freedom.
Could you give a quick summary of how technology inevitably leads to loss of freedom? I understand that this is often the case, but is it always necessarily the case? Ie. Is it a universal law that "Technology leads to loss of freedom"?
It's been about ten years since I last read it, but as I remember the basic argument is:
- Technology can always be used for both good and evil.
- As technology gets more powerful, the potential for causing harm will be greater.
- Each new technology will require new laws in order to minimize the potential harms of that technology.
- Each of those laws is going to have unintended consequences that will result in the loss of freedom.
- As the rate of technological discovery increases, the amount of freedom approaches zero.
He proposes it as a universal law, and I think it makes sense. But I also suspect that the idea that we're approaching the singularity is actually a cognitive distortion caused by observer bias, so things might not be quite as bad as they seem.
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#9Here's my "secret" I believe to be true. Rule of law makes countries rich. Rule of law foster cooperation and trust in societies. People can trust authorities and each other. Democracies don't foster trust. Instead, they ferment disrespect and corruption. Politicians make law to gain vote. They don't care about long term consequences. They want pork for their district, not efficient funding. That lead to distrust, fe…
> Rule of law makes countries rich. Rule of law foster cooperation and trust in societies. People can trust authorities and each other. I don't think that part of your thesis is too controversial. The big idea of common law, for example, is that courts try to make their decisions reasonably consistent with previous decisions, not because they think that this will necessarily lead to the best decisions each time, but…
But it's not the same plant if it is built cutting corners on the design. Or even if it is the same plant, of waste is disposed unsafely or workers are abused, the plant doesn't cost less, the costs are pushed onto unconsenting parties.
Re: Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 11 Notes Essay
#10Here's my "secret" I believe to be true. Rule of law makes countries rich. Rule of law foster cooperation and trust in societies. People can trust authorities and each other. Democracies don't foster trust. Instead, they ferment disrespect and corruption. Politicians make law to gain vote. They don't care about long term consequences. They want pork for their district, not efficient funding. That lead to distrust, fe…
Sorry but that is just nonsense. Disrespect and corruption will exist as long as human ambition exists. It is not unique to democracy as is demonstrated every day in places like China or India. And of course politicians will make laws to gain votes. That is the whole point of democracy. What people don't get is politicians are a perfect reflection of society. For better or worse.
Disrespect and corruption will exist as long as human ambition exists.
I don't believe humans are necessarily always evil. I believe that they are largely malleable in their goodness and evilness.
It is not unique to democracy as is demonstrated every day in places like China or India.
I didn't say that democracy is the only type of government that foster corruption. I did say that democracy help fosters corruption.
What people don't get is politicians are a perfect reflection of society. For better or worse.
Do you believe in the idea of incentive? If so, incentive can determine what kind of politicians we elect. If the incentive is bad, we'll elect bad one. If the incentive is good, we'll elect good one.
I believe democracy, as we westerners practice it, leads us to politicians who are often corrupt.