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

Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

cjohnson.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 212 posts

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#81

Post by rednukleus »

nostromo wrote: post #14

I've been thinking of patents as nukes during the Cold War lately. Superpowers (US/USSR, Apple/Google) acquire very large nuclear/patent arsenals under the guise of protection/defense. These arsenals are relatively cheap for superpowers to build, but they are expensive for small states (small countries/small businesses) to acquire. The US and USSR were roughly equivalent in their arsenals so it made little sense for…

Good analogy. But you got the countries around the wrong way with "(US/USSR, Apple/Google)". The resemblence to the cold war is even more striking when you realise that this also parallels planned economy vs free market.

It will be interesting to see if we get the same result at the company level as we did at the country level.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#82

Post by adam704 »

crusso wrote: post #44

The thing about capitalism, and our dismal history with capitalism-at-large, the "assume the other party is a shitbag" idea is so fundamentally ingrained in our cultural What's that got to do with Capitalism? Correct me if I'm making a straw man, but the alternative to capitalism is to remove negotiation from individual interactions by implementing more State-heavy mechanisms like Communism. Isn't creating a crap-ton…

Much of the "invisible hand" idea about how free markets run, and more specifically how they run efficiently, relies on the axiom that people in the market will act rationally towards their own self-interest. As with the Tragedy of the Commons, a capitalist model (generally at least) assumes that people will act towards their own self-interest even when those actions work to the detriment of the group. People that fit that description are certainly selfish (if rightfully so) and in that sense may qualify as "shitbags."

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#83

Post by hiker »

krisgenre wrote: post #78
Ygg2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, regions which make it uninhabitable for humans make it habitable for animals. Chernobyl is now a haven for wildlife.

That's interesting. I thought thought radioactivity was harmful to all life forms, any source?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSWWSq714aQ

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#84

Post by recursive »

> The Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrates that a Nash equilibrium solution is not always Pareto optimal. The "confess-confess" solution is the Nash equilibrium. You will always be better off screwing the other person over, whether they are honest or dishonest. The "deny-deny" solution is Pareto optimal. If both parties can somehow trust each other, they will both be better off selecting this solution.

This part is very confusing to me. I've always understood that deny was the screw-over move in the prisoner's dilemma. But this segment suggests that confessing is a local optimum. Have I misunderstood the prisoner's dilemma all these years?

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#85

Post by fulafel »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #28
nostromo wrote: post #14

I've been thinking of patents as nukes during the Cold War lately. Superpowers (US/USSR, Apple/Google) acquire very large nuclear/patent arsenals under the guise of protection/defense. These arsenals are relatively cheap for superpowers to build, but they are expensive for small states (small countries/small businesses) to acquire. The US and USSR were roughly equivalent in their arsenals so it made little sense for…

Personally, I see nukes as more ethical than patents. You can make the argument that MAD-based nuclear deterrence has saved us (at least so far) from a third world war. Not everyone will agree, of course, but a strong case can be made. On the other hand, to defend patents, you have to show that there are things on the market that we can buy that would not have been made available to us if not for patent rights. Nobod…

A strong case can be made that the risk of nuclear war that we incurred is worse than a conventional ww3. Say we had a 1/2 risk of nuclear war and a probable cost of conventional war would be 1/10 of a nuclear ww3.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#86

Post by tempestn »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #71
tempestn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: First, you might want to clarify in the first paragraph that you're talking about the existence of nukes, as opposed to the use of nukes. It's clear from reading your entire comment, but I find it's good to play it safe with that sort of topic! ;) Second, to play devil's advocate, is it possible that landmines could have a net positive impact if they could somehow be properly, globally regulated? For and…

How's this for "correctly?" http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ Kind of like copyleft- but for patents.

Hmm, I can see how that sort of thing makes sense given the current state of the patent system, but personally I don't believe that so-called 'offensive' patents are irredeemable. Rather, it seems to me that they are simply far too broadly granted, and generally for far too long a time period. I have no problem with a patent-enforced monopoly if it is granted for a true innovation, and for a reasonable length of time.

For example, in the smartphone industry, where a product is old in a year and obsolete in three, it doesn't make sense to me for patents to last decades. On the other hand, it does seem reasonable to reward significant innovation by granting a patent for a long enough time period to establish a strong market position, before opening things up to competition. The tricky thing is, that ideal time period would be highly variable based on the industry and even the specific idea being patented. Still, surely there's room for improvement there.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#87

Post by haihaibye »

recursive wrote: post #84

> The Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrates that a Nash equilibrium solution is not always Pareto optimal. The "confess-confess" solution is the Nash equilibrium. You will always be better off screwing the other person over, whether they are honest or dishonest. The "deny-deny" solution is Pareto optimal. If both parties can somehow trust each other, they will both be better off selecting this solution. This part is very c…

>> deny was the screw-over move in the prisoner's dilemma. But this segment suggests that confessing is a local optimum.

The competition is between you and the other prisoner, not vs the state. Confessing screws over the other prisoner.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#88

Post by natural219 »

ajsharp wrote: post #67

I enjoyed your post. I have a couple of thoughts / suggestions for you. I got the impression that the underlying motivation for writing the post, and tactic you used for justifying your positions was largely in response to what I would consider the overly myopic hacker news user base. That is, disproportionately white, male, curmudgeoney programmers. I sympathize with your frustration, but urge you not to let their w…

Actually, I agree with you more than you'd think. After living in San Francisco for a year or two, I'm absolutely skeptical toward 99% of the stuff that's passed off as "Silicon Valley revolutionary" crap. I'm pretty much only interested in pure technology: SpaceX/Tesla, new hardware manufacturing / internet of things, drones, immersive computing, bitcoin (to some extent), etc.

Which is why, I think, I can enjoy the HBO show thoroughly while still lamenting about "where did all the hackers go"

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#89

Post by rowyourboat » 

  I believe the current skepticism around Silicon Valley's
  "Make The World a Better Place" mentality is deeply rooted
  in historical anxiety about institutional capitalism.
OT rant here: I don't think this is related to Tesla opening up at all. "We make the World a Better Place" is self-important bullshit in 99.9% of cases. The most likely outcome is that what you are doing has no measurable impact on the "goodness" of the world. In most cases, what you are doing matters only to a tiny fraction of the world's population. "Making the World a Better Place" is simply self-important hyperbole to the extreme.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#90

Post by ekianjo »

krisgenre wrote: post #78
Ygg2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, regions which make it uninhabitable for humans make it habitable for animals. Chernobyl is now a haven for wildlife.

That's interesting. I thought thought radioactivity was harmful to all life forms, any source?

> I thought thought radioactivity was harmful to all life forms

The ambient levels of radioactivity are very "livable" in the surroundings of Chernobyl nowadays, plus you have to consider that it's not because radioactivity is detrimental that it prevents animals from breeding and surviving. Only very high levels of radioactivity are known to be fast killers, moderate levels will likely cause more cancers, and low levels are heavily debated (some people saying it causes harm, some others saying it has protective effects on the body as it kills a number of microorganisms).

Post reply on HN