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

Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#321

Post by Dalewyn »

mdp2021 wrote: post #306
Dalewyn wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are demonstrating what I joked(?) in another comment ("It ain't democracy if you ain't won.") perfectly . Thanks.

No, not perfectly, because your half-joked formula can have implications that are very much not universal. (In fact, it can also mean the opposite of what I wrote. Although, it can have a few interpretations which are interesting and productive beyond its close scope: among them, "discontent reveals flaws in the system".) Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates t…

I mean, you're still bitching strictly because you didn't win.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#322

Post by verisimi »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #315
verisimi wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you able to say that 'you assume that the earth is a sphere but don't know that to be the case'? Do you actually say 'I know the earth is a sphere' even though you don't "know"? Do you know the difference between belief and knowing?

I think/believe/know that the main difference between thinking/believing/knowing is in their nuance. Fundamentally i believe they reflect the same meaning, mainly their strongness is different. I believe the earth is sphere shaped. I'm pretty sure it is, but I haven't seen it with my own eyes. I have seen parts of the curvature of the earth, but can't be 100 percent sure this was not due to lens effects of the atmosp…

Great. I'm glad you are happy to use 'believe' rather than 'know', if you are trying to convey your meaning clearly.

I think there is a huge value in this, in being clear on what one knows (that I am sitting on a chair) and what one believes (that the earth is a sphere). Belief in a thing indicates that something is a hypothesis to oneself, while knowing conveys whatever-it-is is a fact.

I totally accept that think/believe/know are used interchangeably in conversation etc, but I also hold that there is a (huge) value to oneself in being able to keep these distinctions clear.

Taking a moral angle to it, misusing these terms is actually to lie or mislead others by overstating or understating your certainty.

Do you have a definition for 'know', in a hard/technical/non-colloquial sense?

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#323

Post by amagi »

Imo, the "Media Bias Chart" is an appeal to authority Postman may have warned against. Iirc, it rates articles 'in the news cycle'. Except those very sources determine which "news" items are worthy of coverage.

Sources that are not in the prescribed 'news cycle' like AntiWar.com, FEE, The Institute For Justice, MintPressNews are not on the self-licking-icecream-cone list.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#324

Post by Mistletoe »

hermitcrab wrote: post #251
Mistletoe wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are right. I wish people paid attention to Blade Runner, Alien, etc. and realized what an equal or greater danger unchecked corporations are.

Another, non-fictional, example of a corporation run wild is the British East India company. At one point they had a larger army than Britain. Because many of the British establishment had investments in the company and because the awful things it did were 'out of sight' it seems they were allowed to do pretty much whatever they wanted. As long as they kept turning a profit.

This seems so very close to Google etc. today. No one wants to corral tech because their entire portfolio value is tied to tech through something as simple as the SP500.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#325

Post by robotresearcher »

hackable_sand wrote: post #248
robotresearcher wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As did Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

I don't think he can run for office in the US so this is false.

You chose to take an ambiguous statement that could be read as true or false, and call out the false interpretation. Of course the true statement was the intended meaning, as I’m sure you knew.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#326

Post by api »

watwut wrote: post #266
api wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started reading more books (again) lately and the depth of character development and ideas in long form fiction is striking compared to even most long-form TV and films, let alone short attention span social media slop. (... and the best long-form TV and films are often based on books ...) You can really get deep into characters' heads, their motivations, etc. The more I read the more I feel like it makes me a b…

Back then when people read a lot there was "junk literature". I read it a lot when I was younger. There was no dept of character development nor complex plots. It was formulaic, simple, you got your violence/romance/thrill/whatever fix for the week and moved on. The things people read when they read a lot were not deep masterpieces. They were, basically, shovelware in book form.

There is still a boatload of junk literature, but if you dig there is ten lifetimes worth of good stuff. I will never read it all. New good stuff is always being published too, but like music you have to dig.

I like to read a mix of new material from good up and coming authors and classics on my backlog.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#327

Post by nuancebydefault »

verisimi wrote: post #322
nuancebydefault wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think/believe/know that the main difference between thinking/believing/knowing is in their nuance. Fundamentally i believe they reflect the same meaning, mainly their strongness is different. I believe the earth is sphere shaped. I'm pretty sure it is, but I haven't seen it with my own eyes. I have seen parts of the curvature of the earth, but can't be 100 percent sure this was not due to lens effects of the atmosp…

Great. I'm glad you are happy to use 'believe' rather than 'know', if you are trying to convey your meaning clearly. I think there is a huge value in this, in being clear on what one knows (that I am sitting on a chair) and what one believes (that the earth is a sphere). Belief in a thing indicates that something is a hypothesis to oneself, while knowing conveys whatever-it-is is a fact. I totally accept that think/b…

I understood what you are trying to say an i mostly agree. I guess most people find it a bit pedantic to make a hard distinction between believing and knowing. One of the pet peeves of mine is to use words correctly. Often in the office we use words that are incorrect but everybody uses them and hence I'm the pedantic one pointing them to the fact those wrong wording might create a wrong view on things. There are plenty such words and expressions and often things would clear up by using the most appropriate term or expression.

That said, indeed saying 'I know God exists' is misleading. It is trying to convince by stating beliefs as being True.

The thing is, i believe knowing is simply a colloquial term. I read the book 'reality is not what it seems'. We make models of the world. Those models are wrong but mostly good enough to get along, but over time science prooves that each should be replaced by a less wrong model. Models stay wrong ad infinitum. That all to say that just maybe Truth with a capital does not exist, we can only converge toward it. Hence non-colooquial knowing might not exist.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#328

Post by verisimi »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #327
verisimi wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. I'm glad you are happy to use 'believe' rather than 'know', if you are trying to convey your meaning clearly. I think there is a huge value in this, in being clear on what one knows (that I am sitting on a chair) and what one believes (that the earth is a sphere). Belief in a thing indicates that something is a hypothesis to oneself, while knowing conveys whatever-it-is is a fact. I totally accept that think/b…

I understood what you are trying to say an i mostly agree. I guess most people find it a bit pedantic to make a hard distinction between believing and knowing. One of the pet peeves of mine is to use words correctly. Often in the office we use words that are incorrect but everybody uses them and hence I'm the pedantic one pointing them to the fact those wrong wording might create a wrong view on things. There are ple…

Yes, the model one has and the terms one uses probably vary from person to person. However, a meaningful exchange of ideas can occur anyway, if we are prepared to hone in on definitions of words, and correct the difference in personal meanings. This requires patience and good will.

It is the opposite to making Barnum statements, such you get in politics like: 'this is a good thing' allowing each individual to mislead themselves with their own definition of 'good'.

Imo, truth with a capital T does exist - it is that which has happened. This is valid if we are not living in a simulation... which I personally don't think we are in. However, we only have our personal view on truth/reality. Pretending we can have anything more (via shared models such as religion or science) is flawed. Recognising the (very limited!) boundaries of what we know, and knowing the difference between belief and knowledge is essential.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#330

Post by nuancebydefault »

verisimi wrote: post #328
nuancebydefault wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood what you are trying to say an i mostly agree. I guess most people find it a bit pedantic to make a hard distinction between believing and knowing. One of the pet peeves of mine is to use words correctly. Often in the office we use words that are incorrect but everybody uses them and hence I'm the pedantic one pointing them to the fact those wrong wording might create a wrong view on things. There are ple…

Yes, the model one has and the terms one uses probably vary from person to person. However, a meaningful exchange of ideas can occur anyway, if we are prepared to hone in on definitions of words, and correct the difference in personal meanings. This requires patience and good will. It is the opposite to making Barnum statements, such you get in politics like: 'this is a good thing' allowing each individual to mislead…

I can only agree!
Post reply on HN