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

What You Can't Say (2004)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 308 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#71

Post by dec0dedab0de »

cryoshon wrote: post #39
mef wrote: post #25

Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers? If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told. The other alternative would be that you independently consid…

It's possible, yeah, but you have to be particularly insensitive to both verbal and nonverbal rejection cues in order to be willing to do it more than once. Ever pitched a controversial opinion to a group of peers? You'll find that a lot of people look down at their hands, or away from you, or at each other with a blank/expectant/fearful face.

you have to be particularly insensitive to both verbal and nonverbal rejection cues

I think that might be me. I have to figure out a way to test this.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#72

Post by staunch »

ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

Those are not things we cannot say though. Most people I know well think US prisons are a human rights crisis, eating meat is ethically unjustifiable (but delicious), and choosing to die is plainly a human right.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#74

Post by jbooth »

staunch wrote: post #72
ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

Those are not things we cannot say though. Most people I know well think US prisons are a human rights crisis, eating meat is ethically unjustifiable (but delicious), and choosing to die is plainly a human right.

I bet if you polled the US national population, you'd find the opposite and by a strong margin.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#75

Post by tempestn »

A fairly minor but prevalent one is speed limit laws. I personally feel most speed limit laws in North America are ridiculous. In almost every situation it is safe to drive significantly faster than the posted speed, so it seems fairly obvious that there's something wrong with the law itself.

Now, in this particular group I expect that isn't terribly controversial. But it can be a very unpopular opinion in some circles for two different reasons.

1) It's the law. You want to break the law?

And the somewhat more reasonable one:

2) Nothing is more important than human life. If driving slowly can save even one life, it's worth it. By advocating an increase to speed limits, you're valuing a few minutes of your time over people's lives.

Now, for one thing, it has been demonstrated by numerous studies that increased speed limits do not necessarily result in increased accident rates (in fact, often the opposite). But even leaving that aside. Say that an across the board increase to speed limits of X%^ results in a Y% increase in fatal crashes. For some sufficiently (very) small Y/X, would that not be worthwhile? It's callous, but it seems to me that it must be true. (I mean, look at the extreme case. Driving at any speed is much more dangerous than walking, but we do it anyway since it gets us places faster.) I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable saying so in a lot of peer groups though, nor without all the preamble.

^Not that that would be the most logical way to do it of course.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm speaking of main arterial roads and highways here, not residential streets. At least in most of Canada, almost all non-highways have speed limits of 50km/h, regardless of whether they're a residential side-street or a major 4 or 6 lane road. Most highways have limits of 80km/h, a few 100, and the highest I've ever seen is 110. In good conditions, most highways could easily be safely traveled at at least 120km/h. I don't think it makes sense to set speed limits for the worst case scenario, and ignore all the efficiency that could be safely gained in most driving conditions.

I haven't done a ton of driving in the US, so it's possible the situation differs there more than I was aware.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#76

Post by [deleted] »

jbooth wrote: post #74
staunch wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not things we cannot say though. Most people I know well think US prisons are a human rights crisis, eating meat is ethically unjustifiable (but delicious), and choosing to die is plainly a human right.

I bet if you polled the US national population, you'd find the opposite and by a strong margin.

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#77

Post by DickingAround »

ggreer wrote: post #68

Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…

As much as I might want to agree with some of them, they fail the 'time' test. We've used prisons for a while, same with eating animals.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#78

Post by [deleted] »

afterburner wrote: post #63
waps wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Even in Paul Graham's own essay, some things are always forgotten. He's smart enough to question why the Church/Italian state attacked Galileo for repeating Copernicus' ideas, who was a celebrated hero of the church. And nobody ever realizes that Galileo was not at all interested in the scientific facts (well he was, up to the point he went insane and became a political agitator and generally a lunatic, read…

"Kemal Ataturk, an early 20th century figure that a lot more genocidal than Hitler. He also ended the 1.5 millenia long war of muslims against the west and the east, and frankly without him we would not have a modern time." Bit grandiose.

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#79

Post by [deleted] »

tempestn wrote: post #75

A fairly minor but prevalent one is speed limit laws. I personally feel most speed limit laws in North America are ridiculous. In almost every situation it is safe to drive significantly faster than the posted speed, so it seems fairly obvious that there's something wrong with the law itself. Now, in this particular group I expect that isn't terribly controversial. But it can be a very unpopular opinion in some circl…

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#80

Post by maxerickson »

tempestn wrote: post #75

A fairly minor but prevalent one is speed limit laws. I personally feel most speed limit laws in North America are ridiculous. In almost every situation it is safe to drive significantly faster than the posted speed, so it seems fairly obvious that there's something wrong with the law itself. Now, in this particular group I expect that isn't terribly controversial. But it can be a very unpopular opinion in some circl…

I don't think you are correct about speed limits. Most limited access roads can probably support higher speeds (Except when there is a lot of traffic entering and exiting), but the majority of 2 lane roads don't have the visibility to support much higher speeds (More developed roads probably do, but they are small fraction of the total mileage).

Roads that see much pedestrian use certainly don't need higher limits (they don't necessarily need lower limits either, just some better sharing system).

Post reply on HN