171–180 of 236 posts
How is sending a person to the moon a whole world problem? what "problem" did it solve in the world?
How to make a backup of life on earth in case of a planetary extinction event, assuming that those off planet could start over once things calmed down.
But technologists used to work on big problems. Not First World problems, but whole world problems -- sending humans to the moon, ending poverty, ending disease. Point taken, but. . .not sure I agree that technologists were that involved with trying to end povery. Well, they were certainly involved, but I don't think they were the drivers. And I think sending humans to the moon was definitely a first world "problem"…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
That was huge, and new technology was what made it possible.
We call ourselves innovators, but most of us are really just iterators... That's a fine line. The most significant innovations are often iterations. (Google comes to mind.) Why do we do this? Because we want to get rich, of course. I disagree with "Because we want to get rich". And I definitely disagree with "of course". Real hackers do this because we just have to . It just so happens that currently it's also a grea…
Let's stop with this this 'real hacker' bullshit. There's nothing wrong with being motivated by wealth; gates was and now he's the largest charity on the planet.
My theory is that that's because once you have enough to get by, the problem of money goes away and is replaced with competing concerns (ie. curiosity to create, learn or experience new things).
Who is he saying is the third largest corporation on the planet? Privately held? Publicly? Largest in what sense, market capitalization? I'd really like to know who he actually means there. I assume he means a private company since he refers to ("the family that owns it"). In that case is he referring to Mars? Or maybe he means Wal-Mart, who do not appear to be the third largest corp, but the majority shareholders ar…
Wal-Mart is, according to Wikipedia, the third largest privately-held corporation in the world, after Shell Oil and Exxon. And no, they're not a good model to emulate, that wasn't my point. :-) This was an eight minute speech, and the text you're reading was my notes for it, not the final version, so some of the subtlety gets lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Fix the base system" would be something like "I made a simpler marketplace so that care providers (doctors) can directly bill patients, cheaply and transparently." ... while simultaneously violating the agreements they signed with insurance providers and putting themselves out of business? I don't know about you, but I want prisoners to stay in prison. To make a blanket statement like "[Contributing to keeping pri…
It is mere rules fetishism to desire that prisoners be kept in prison without respect to what is just and what is right.
> But technologists used to work on big problems. Not First World problems, but whole world problems -- sending humans to the moon, ending poverty, ending disease. Having enough surplus capital that we can take a three day trip to the Moon seems pretty First World to me. Which technologists worked on "ending poverty" as a primary goal? Did we stop working on ending disease? We can't seem to decide whether we are spen…
> Having enough surplus capital that we can take a three day trip to the Moon seems pretty First World to me. Today, perhaps, but in retrospect our first manned moon mission probably bdid more for 20th-Century technology than any other single project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's stop with this this 'real hacker' bullshit. There's nothing wrong with being motivated by wealth; gates was and now he's the largest charity on the planet.
There's no need to be confrontational. I agree with the suggestion that wealth is generally not the aim that drives the more knowledgeable minds to long-term effect in our industry. My theory is that that's because once you have enough to get by, the problem of money goes away and is replaced with competing concerns (ie. curiosity to create, learn or experience new things).
I disagree, I think that the 'real' anything meme is harmful and should be stopped immediately.
> I agree with the suggestion that wealth is generally not the aim that drives the more knowledgeable minds to long-term effect in our industry.
I agree with this as well, I just didn't like the idea that if you are driven by money then you aren't a hacker.
EDIT: added missing word.
I'm not sure how long the OP has been an arm-chair social scientist, but I've been one for twenty-five years, and I feel like I might be able to share some insights. Firstly, his thesis could be boiled down to a very simple question: "Why do people do what they do (instead of what I want them to do)?" You suggest that they are insufficiently self-reflective, not very world-wise, and perhaps just a bit self-centred. T…
As someone who seriously considered becoming an academic economist, I think you're spot on in your analysis about human motivation except for one thing: altruism. Altruism does exist, and not just because people want the "good feeling" of having done "good deeds." I've seen Levitt of the University of Chicago speak several times about an altruism experiment that economists conducted showing the lack of altruism in pe…
I'm undecided on the matter, but the $20 thing is clearly not self-less altruism. Someone willing to spend $20 to prove they're "right"? I'm just not convinced.
Your experiment sounds interesting. I worry that people would still expect to be judged for it though (I mean, if they know they're participating in an experiment, they're expecting the results to be recorded and/or being watched, as you say). Also I expect that decades of acting a certain way due to being observed by society will form some pretty strong habits. Sounds fascinating none-the-less :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much wrong with this statement I almost threw my monitor out the window. Broke is temporary. Poor is a state of mind and often may be permanent. More importantly, the implication is that without money, your life is meaningless - which is a terrible lie to believe. There is no middle class anymore : a line created by average folks who earn an average wage and spend too much and make minimum monthly payments on ever…
Look, I save almost 1/4 of my income and I still feel poor in many ways. It's not about spending habits it's being able to survive bad shit financially. A friend of mine had a single seizure while looking for work and could not drive for 6 months plus significant medical bills. IMO, if you can't survive a minor medical issue financially then your not middle class and it's really hard to get there before 35 or if you…
That really sucks for your friend. But they exemplify the difference between broke and poor -- they were broke, in a bad spot; but I assume they're gainfully employed now and managing well (I hope).
In other words, they use technology as a tool in broader campaigns aimed at solving societal problems. To name just one example of many, take a look at how the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is using apps to combat childhood obesity.
For people who are really affecting change, technology is a tool rather than a shiny new toy or a means to an end.