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

And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 447 posts

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#111

Post by bad_haircut72 »

cjs_ac wrote: post #17

Technology cannot solve social problems. Societies can solve social problems using technology, just as they can without using technology, but ultimately it is the society that solves the problem.

If tech can cause social problems (there are multiple books on this) then it can solve them too - the only modern tech industry we've ever known has been dominated by players attempting forms of lockin to capture rents and amass enormous fortunes, of course the technology of this society isnt generally helpful to the society at large.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#112

Post by coaksford »

cwmoore wrote: post #41
readthenotes1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust is a Continuum. I have relatives who grew up in places where you didn't need to lock the door at night and those who have to lock the door at night but that's enough and those for who that is not enough. I am reminded of a story I read lately of a woman who was shocked when her passport and purse were stolen from the beach while she was swimming. Somehow she had the perception that she was in a high trust worth…

Sounds very binary, I don’t see the continuum. More like a steep cliff of shocking betrayal.

Whether you mistrusted and were betrayed by that trust is binary, but that's like if someone says "radioactivity is a continuum" and you say "I either got hit by a gamma ray or not" as if that settles the question. Really the question was more like "what's the mean time to betrayal?" or "how big of a payoff can someone be trusted with before they have a 50% chance of betraying trust?" or "am I more or less confident that this person can be trusted in this situation?" or any of a dozen other obvious ways that people who seriously consider the issue of trust do so. If you think the binary states are absolute trust and absolute paranoia and there is no in between (as having any in-between makes it a continuum) then you've got a conception of trust that nobody else in the world finds seriously useful.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#113

Post by salynchnew »

Johnny_Bonk wrote: post #5
jameskilton wrote: post #3

A good article, but missing one very important word: trust. Civil society only exists when there is a collective general trust that most people are trying to do the right thing. Said society also finds it incredibly important to remove or nullify those who aren't trustworthy because "a rotten apple spoils the whole bunch ". Trust is hard to earn, and easy to lose, and it only takes one person exploiting the trustwort…

Yes good point and in theory that's how it should work and mostly does. The interesting thing we're seeing is how it's playing out at a societal level with regards to the manipulation, gaslighting, cheating and bullying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in individual interpersonal relationships, it sometimes takes a while for the victim to fully understand what's being done to them because the abuser is not onl…

It is kind of funny and sad that in the U.S. we've gone from corporations virtue-signalling to vice signalling in just a few years.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#114

Post by cwmoore »

lend000 wrote: post #67
HWR_14 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the ideal number of jails is not zero, but why wouldn't the ideal number of homeless people be zero?

I knew someone who worked at some sort of homeless services clinic, and I asked how many people they were able to help get back on their feet in a sustainable way. The answer was 1; I don't know what the denominator was, but the takeaway is that most of the visibly homeless people you see are uncoachable and you really can't protect people from themselves. With a huge caveat that the visibly homeless is a subset of t…

Programs are watched carefully for embezzlement, not really accountable for positive outcomes.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#115

Post by sixsevenrot »

HWR_14 wrote: post #20
cwmoore wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we have built so many enduring systems that rely on bad apples to function the way the do. See "insurance pricing", "private prisons", and "justice enforcement". In the real world, the ideal number of jails or homeless people is neither zero nor "all of them".

Obviously the ideal number of jails is not zero, but why wouldn't the ideal number of homeless people be zero?

Because there are places, where it's safe and reasonable to remain without a permanent home for an extended period of time. Warmer areas of Australia come to mind, or Dominic van Allen (https://www.theguardian.com/society/audio/2023/sep/20/from-t...) from the UK.

It's a very fine line, between authoritarianism and the freedom of someone (whatever their mental state/ability is) to chose to not have a permanent place to live, while going through a difficult or promising phase of life. See also "The Pursuit of Happyness"

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#116

Post by adw »

lend000 wrote: post #67
HWR_14 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the ideal number of jails is not zero, but why wouldn't the ideal number of homeless people be zero?

I knew someone who worked at some sort of homeless services clinic, and I asked how many people they were able to help get back on their feet in a sustainable way. The answer was 1; I don't know what the denominator was, but the takeaway is that most of the visibly homeless people you see are uncoachable and you really can't protect people from themselves. With a huge caveat that the visibly homeless is a subset of t…

The implication (given that the US is an outlier here) is that prevention is much better than cure here; that means reform of healthcare and social housing so people are less likely to wind up in that trap.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#117

Post by rayiner »

jameskilton wrote: post #3

A good article, but missing one very important word: trust. Civil society only exists when there is a collective general trust that most people are trying to do the right thing. Said society also finds it incredibly important to remove or nullify those who aren't trustworthy because "a rotten apple spoils the whole bunch ". Trust is hard to earn, and easy to lose, and it only takes one person exploiting the trustwort…

> Civil society only exists when there is a collective general trust that most people are trying to do the right thing

The phrase "the right thing" is load-bearing, to steal a Claudeism. The Muslim Brotherhood that ran the country before El-Sisi thought they were doing "the right thing." El-Sisi also thought he was doing "the right thing." Egyptians mostly thought El-Sisi was doing “the right thing” during this time period. According to multiple independent opinion polls, his approval rating was high during this period because people were grateful to have stability.

In any society, you're going to have diverse views of "the right thing." To have a functioning civil society, you actually need the opposite of what you're saying. You need a collective general trust that people will follow the rules regardless of what they think is "the right thing."

Logic compels this conclusion. People who disagree on fundamental aspects of how the world and society should work cannot cooperate in a civil society if we trust that everyone will follow their vision of "the right thing." The only way we can cooperate is if we agree to neutral rules and procedures, and have a collective general trust that we'll all follow the rules regardless of our view of wrong or right. The thing I admire most about Anglo-American culture is that people will jump off a bridge if you give them a court order that complies with all required procedural formalities. That's how you create a civil society.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#118

Post by decimalenough »

> But it is easy to see why some people feel this might open the gateway to messages which, at best, are irrelevant

If you're in South Korea, you can expect to get around half a dozen emergency notifications every day. Typical contents include "it's cold, so dress warmly", "roads are icy, so drive carefully", and "Mrs Kim, 79, suffers from dementia and was last seen in Seoul wearing a black coat".

You can set your phone to filter these out, but then you'll also miss the notification about North Korea commencing artillery bombardment.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#119

Post by protocolture »

like_any_other wrote: post #47
jMyles wrote: post #8

> How would you design a system that simultaneously achieved all these goals: There is an obvious solution that achieves all of these, that, on 1000 year timescales, seems inevitable: deprecation of the nation-state. The internet solves every problem the nation-state purports to. For example, the very real problem of coordination, eloquently and convincingly outlined in the federalist papers (tldr: we need a central…

> The internet solves every problem the nation-state purports to. Nations organize themselves into states to protect and promote their interests, including their existence as cultural and ethnic groups, from competing states (and other dangers, e.g. natural disasters). A.k.a. politics. I was not aware politics has been solved by the internet.

>including their existence as cultural and ethnic groups

I mean if people want to have a distinct culture or ethnicity they will or will not as they desire.

If anything the history of the nation state is forcing 12 different ethnic groups into a single culture that only reflects part of their heritage. Look at Nazi Germany trying to suppress Bavarian culture as insufficiently German. Or the UK suppressing Welsh and Irish culture.

Nation States enforce a mono culture to build false unity, always has been.

>from competing states

Ukraine Iran and Afghanistan are really the only states that have done defense "Alone" in recent memory. Everyone else joins larger groups for defense. NATO for example. The Nation State isnt the headline defensive organism, and when it is, its generally a failure.

>Nations organize themselves into states to protect and promote their interests.

This is the closest to the truth, except it would be better put as

>Nations organize themselves into states to protect and promote the interests of the ruling party.

Always has been, ever since the 2 dominant forms of government were Palace Economies and Temple Economies. The goal was suppression and slavery of farmers to ensure the quality of life of the people in the cities, so they can build secondary and tertiary industries to enrich the Prince or Priest at the top of the pack.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#120

Post by jknoepfler »

cwmoore wrote: post #103
jknoepfler wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly this isn't the right conversation to be having at all. In the United States, ~40% of the homeless are employed. A deeply non-trivial percent either are kids or have kids. Everyone should volunteer at a support center for homeless youth some time. Sure, there may be some kind of Pareto principal in play for the hardest 20% of cases to crack. Who cares? Let's eliminate 80% of the existing problem and worry abo…

And then there are people who aren't families, without the knack for conveying a moving story, or exceptionally good in every way but unfair circumstances. Many of these people, and not just the really, really bad nuisance ones people use as excuses to superiority, are literally slaves, performing the scarecrow work of deterrence as living examples, for "society", for no pay. I think this is an injustice, subverted b…

That's the plain truth, and I think it's unfortunate that we need to use sympathetic examples as a bridge. I guess I've accepted the premise that the privileged gestalt is profoundly distorted and that "charismatic macrofauna" are a necessary ladder to be kicked away.

The example is true, but to your point, isn't representative... and that doesn't matter.

Post reply on HN