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

341–350 of 352 posts

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#341

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #91
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The failure of some grand visions doesn’t doom all future ones. That’s just silly.

Grand visions are more in service of megalomaniacal egos than actual solutions. They all just paint over the very real complexities of the world and expect things to just work as they envisioned. Just get rid of the sparrows eating grains and it will just be fine! There are limits to what complexities can be contained within one human mind, and with a world already orders of magnitudes more complex than that we need…

There’s no requirement that a vision be constrained within one person’s mind, that it be inflexible to changing conditions, that it be incapable of testing policies before it implements them, and who’s to say that sufficiently complex machines or new organizations of people wouldn’t be capable of successfully abstracting society’s irreducible complexities well enough to make good decisions? Couldn’t a grand vision, for example, be one in which local communities make most important decisions for themselves, thus removing most of the computational failures of central governance? I just think you’re picturing fascism or communism when I say grand vision, but imo those aren’t representative of what every grand vision would look like.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#342

Post by mdp2021 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #339
mdp2021 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dalewyn, are you aware you are trolling? Low effort, unmanageable statements, assumptions, insinuations, deafness... -- Stating «My guy didn't win» implies there would have been a sought candidate which lost in a competition: that is delirious. We may not even be aware of who political opponents were: there is no "«My guy»". -- And there can be no confusion of "indecent" with "disliked": scum is scum and there cannot…

You are indirectly defining "your guy" by defining who is not. Your efforts to exclude candidates along your arbitrary lines and complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."

> You are indirectly defining "your guy" by defining who is not

So: in Countria candidate C is elected for some office, competing with other candidates A, B, D and E. Who is «your guy»?

> arbitrary lines

There exist traits which are not arbitrary at all but evident as objectively lowly to some segments of the population. "Pornology" is one of them. Relativism towards those judgements is like fighting arithmetics. Whether candidate "P" were considered interesting by some for other reasons (Heidegger according to Jaspers: "But H. has beautiful hands!"), candidate P remains "scum". Said segment of the population will state being extremely uncomfortable with a society that allows "scum" taking office. The issue will be societal and systemic, and unrelated to competition.

> complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."

Only if you remain in the narrow thought box of assumptions of acceptance of that concept of "democracy", as it appears from some uncertain interpretation of a locution hardly manageable in analytical terms. The expression contains a very loose idea of "won" that seems to imply you support some candidate, actively. And it contains an idea of "democracy" which suggests more than the term can clearly contain (as in, "then there is no democracy!" - ok, "so what", and what would that mean?).

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#343

Post by _yb2s »

fiffled wrote: post #297
_yb2s wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I briefly spent some time on Twitter a few months ago, and it was almost entirely widespread hysteria over things that were easily verifiable as trivially false. For example, at the time people were enraged about a supposed trans woman winning a boxing match in the olympics- but she was not in fact a trans woman. My take is that X/Twitter is mostly sharing fake rage bait, to emotionally manipulate people into support…

The actual issue was that this athlete, Imane Khelif, is male. And was competing in a women's boxing match, despite having previously been deemed ineligible by the International Boxing Association for this reason, after a karyotype test revealed XY chromosomes. The problem is that women's boxing in the Olympics doesn't verify sex other than via identity documents such as passports. Even though the other categorical a…

I would like to reiterate that, like I said, people were specifically spreading the misinformation that she was a trans person that was allowed to compete only under some new policies coming from their political enemies- as part of a broader movement and large group of people that spread anti-trans hate online.

In this context, hardly anyone would care about this if not fueled by an anti-trans political movement that latched onto it. Personally, I think it is in poor taste to publicly comment about if someone else may or may not be medically an intersex person- especially when fueled by an undercurrent of hating people for being different in some way. This person is legally a woman, and is a skilled athlete competing in the only way they are legally allowed to.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#344

Post by iwishiknewlisp »

atiedebee wrote: post #318
iwishiknewlisp wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely randomness and variance in chess. And variance/randomness is important for any sport, that is what makes it exciting and worth playing. If there were no randomness then every game against the same team and players would be the same. And anyway, sports are vastly more complicated than chess is. Just simply dribbling a basketball while bipedal walking is beyond the capability of replication by robot…

A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated. With that logic, games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight. Also, there being variance doesn't mean that there is randomness. There is no random element to the game of chess. All the variance comes from human decisions. It's an unsolved game, so there is no way to guara…

I don't know how you are defining randomness, but the best player doesn't win the game every time, which is about as much proof as you need that there is a degree of randomness.

Define random in terms of sports, the same conditions apply to chess. The wind affecting trajectory of a ball could be similar to environmental factors effecting cognitive performance.

I wouldn't use the term "random" either. What randomness exists for baseball? Slight curve of a bat? Maybe that is part of the game and should be calculated into by the player and isn't randomness at all but part of the game. "Randomness" exists in almost every competitive activity, its called variance.

It's not even worth discussing, you don't even understand the terms you are using.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#345

Post by iwishiknewlisp »

atiedebee wrote: post #318
iwishiknewlisp wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely randomness and variance in chess. And variance/randomness is important for any sport, that is what makes it exciting and worth playing. If there were no randomness then every game against the same team and players would be the same. And anyway, sports are vastly more complicated than chess is. Just simply dribbling a basketball while bipedal walking is beyond the capability of replication by robot…

A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated. With that logic, games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight. Also, there being variance doesn't mean that there is randomness. There is no random element to the game of chess. All the variance comes from human decisions. It's an unsolved game, so there is no way to guara…

> A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated

Less complicated than any sport that a computer can't be better at than humans.

By definition there are more moving variables in 99% of sports than chess. 5 on 5 basketball, at any time any player can be in an almost endless number of positions on the court in an almost endless number of contortions with different velocity and acceleration of multiple components of the body. The mental intelligence required to teach a robot how to walk and run is significantly harder of a problem than beating the best chess player in the world.

Chess isn't complicated. There is a finite number of moves a player can make at any one turn. And there is a finite number of unique possible games that can be played in chess, which means its solvable (not neccesaeily that it will be solved). You can notate an entire chess game on a napkin, you can't even fully quantify any sport with full length video footage. Comparing the vast complexity of physical movement to pieces on a board. Its a joke, you're a joke.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#346

Post by iwishiknewlisp »

atiedebee wrote: post #318
iwishiknewlisp wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely randomness and variance in chess. And variance/randomness is important for any sport, that is what makes it exciting and worth playing. If there were no randomness then every game against the same team and players would be the same. And anyway, sports are vastly more complicated than chess is. Just simply dribbling a basketball while bipedal walking is beyond the capability of replication by robot…

A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated. With that logic, games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight. Also, there being variance doesn't mean that there is randomness. There is no random element to the game of chess. All the variance comes from human decisions. It's an unsolved game, so there is no way to guara…

> There is no random element to the game of chess.

No idea how you are defining random. What random elements exist for cricket? The same things you would define as random for a sport would be the same for chess.

The sad part is I am better at chess than you are. And have a deeper understanding of the game. Unless you are CM rated or above, highly doubt it.

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#347

Post by [deleted] »

atiedebee wrote: post #318
iwishiknewlisp wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely randomness and variance in chess. And variance/randomness is important for any sport, that is what makes it exciting and worth playing. If there were no randomness then every game against the same team and players would be the same. And anyway, sports are vastly more complicated than chess is. Just simply dribbling a basketball while bipedal walking is beyond the capability of replication by robot…

A computer being better than everyone doesn't mean that chess isn't complicated. With that logic, games like CSGO would not be complicated because you could create a bot that headshots everyone at first sight. Also, there being variance doesn't mean that there is randomness. There is no random element to the game of chess. All the variance comes from human decisions. It's an unsolved game, so there is no way to guara…

[deleted]

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#348

Post by racosa »

"Orwell had just published his groundbreaking book Nineteen Eighty-Four, which received glowing reviews from just about every corner of the English-speaking world. His French teacher, as it happens, was none other than Aldous Huxley who taught at Eton for a spell before writing Brave New World (1931), the other great 20th century dystopian novel."

Aldous Huxley to George Orwell: My Hellish Vision of the Future is Better Than Yours (1949) - https://www.openculture.com/2018/08/aldous-huxley-george-orw...

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#349

Post by hackable_sand »

robotresearcher wrote: post #325
hackable_sand wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, you understood

Re: Amusing Ourselves to Death (2009)

#350

Post by _gmax0 »

sph wrote: post #314
_gmax0 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my opinion that "thinking locally and acting locally" is a strategy better reserved for old age.

You have it the wrong way round: when you're young, you (want to) believe your actions have world-changing impact and reach. Then you grow up, and see that the world is much bigger than you, bigger than your ego even, and cannot be wielded or moulded by anyone; so you learn to focus on what's around you and who's around you.

I actually do agree with you. If you "think locally and act locally" while young, you run the risk of being blindsided by tail outcomes in the future.

I think either global thinking or acting in youth is a prerequisite to arriving at the position you describe. I mean, is there a better explanation for mid-life crises?

Post reply on HN