We've solved all the solvable problems.
Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
111–120 of 157 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#112It's hard to know if that's really true. I've been here years (not under this account) and can't say I noticed any obvious trend towards talking about the past more. Still, speculating is irresistible so here's my 2c. It's because tech is relatively stagnant at the moment. i. A lot of traditional "hacker" stuff is about how computers work/are designed, but innovation there has largely stopped. If you look at the newe…
> If you look at the newest operating systems (Android, iOS, ChromeOS, Fuschia), they're all extremely same-y Agreed. This is the central argument present in the old "Unix Haters Handbook". It describes Unix as a virus. > Go, Swift, Kotlin etc - all nice langs but very much of a muchness and avoid new ideas Agreed. This is what I think Greenspun was getting at with his "tenth rule". > iii. Hardware: also stagnant out…
I don't think UNIX is a virus, it's not like Windows is radically different. These types of operating systems have shapes largely defined by the hardware.
Still, I definitely think you can do way more exciting stuff with OS design than what anyone currently does. It would be at the higher levels rather than how the kernel works, but you can do it. Academia is a particular disappointment in this regard - that's the one place that should be able to do really interesting stuff here, yet academic OS research is dead.
There's less scope to do new stuff in PL research, IMO. Most of the radical ideas there have hit dead ends. The whole pure FP thing turned out to be a dead end, when was the last time you thought about Haskell? Probably even Clojure has done better. It's not clear where you can go from here beyond usability improvements which is probably why modern languages all look the same.
Hardware: there's definitely a ton of scope to do cool stuff with AR/VR goggles in the work environment.
Web: Java isn't less closed than the web. Arguably it's actually more open as there are interestingly different implementations of the JVM, it's a way more modular ecosystem that's way less dependent on the absurd army-sized dev team that Chrome requires.
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what you mean by 3, tech is just, well, technology; it can be used for good or bad, just like nuclear bombs. I see a lot of upcoming innovations that will be a net good for humans in the future.
I can't speak for the author, but that comment rings true to me. The tech world did shift at some point from intending to produce things that improve people's lives to intending to produce things that mine people's attention, data, and wallets. The modern tech industry feels much more mercenary and cruel than the tech industry of the past. Whether or not it actually is, or if this is an illusion, could be debated (I…
I agree it's not an illusion.
And I agree with your first point. At least it feels like there's much less emphasis on improving people's lives. I still believe that a product has to have some perceived positive impact on a user's life to be successful. But nowadays, most of the time, that positive impact seems to be focused on instant gratification rather than long term utility. Since the widespread use of the internet became a thing, the back channel then allowed for treating the user as a commodity. I believe this may be one of the qualitative key differences between "now and then" and, if so, it may be a good answer to OP's question.
Better than "we're just getting old, it has always been that way", which I believe is not true.
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but not at this speed and scale.
Counter point to this, is that centralized mass media enabled early 20th century fascism and communism to thrive. Hitler's head of propaganda, Goebbels, supplied subsidized radios to the Germans and used it to funnel propaganda into German households at the speed of light. Goebbels had this to say about it: "It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio....It…
>While a decentralized internet may host extreme views in certain pockets,
Facebook and Twitter are a pretty damned big pocket.
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been wrestling with a terrifying idea lately: The Internet, in its current form, is not a force for good. And the way it is going, it will be a net negative for humanity as a whole. The Internet itself is just bits pushed between computers, but the things we have built on it are dystopian, are a huge cause of the current loneliness epidemic (epidemics have an end date, this is a trend), and it's a way to contr…
> The Internet, in its current form, is not a force for good. And the way it is going, it will be a net negative for humanity as a whole. i'm convinced the dead internet theory is an inevitability for the reasons you outline.
You mean the 'dead internet prophecy' right?
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter point to this, is that centralized mass media enabled early 20th century fascism and communism to thrive. Hitler's head of propaganda, Goebbels, supplied subsidized radios to the Germans and used it to funnel propaganda into German households at the speed of light. Goebbels had this to say about it: "It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio....It…
>While a decentralized internet may host extreme views in certain pockets, Facebook and Twitter are a pretty damned big pocket.
If someone is saying something you don't like on those platforms, just unfollow them / mute them / block them. Nothing is said on those platforms, by the way, that hasn't been said a thousand different times in a thousand different forums, chat rooms, or blogs that preceded them. But I digress, I both support the liberty of people to speak freely on the internet and wish the centralized apps would die off.
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing like generative AI has ever happened. This is new, which is part of why it’s so exciting. No I don’t think these things are going to become sentient (in their present form at least) but no technology has ever been able to do what these models do.
I agree that generative AI doesn't have any direct parallels, but > but no technology has ever been able to do what these models do. That's not new. Steam power, the first computers, _especially_ electricity did things no previous technology could.
>Steam power, the first computers, _especially_ electricity did things no previous technology could.
And it massively changed the world.... so, um, buckle up, I guess.
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter point to this, is that centralized mass media enabled early 20th century fascism and communism to thrive. Hitler's head of propaganda, Goebbels, supplied subsidized radios to the Germans and used it to funnel propaganda into German households at the speed of light. Goebbels had this to say about it: "It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio....It…
I used to think as you on this point, but the past couple of years have filled me with great doubt about how true this actually is.
About how true what is? What has happened on the internet in the past few years that is comparable to Nazi radio control and propaganda?
Maybe the censurious social media apps booting off people with opposing opinions to liberal mainstream in collusion with intelligence agencies actively embedded in their organizations? But that just underscores the dangers of centralization.
I suspect, based on your posturing in the reply, however, that you've been convinced that more control is necessary to counter extreme x or y wing viewpoints. If that be the case, then you would find great solace in the writings of Goebbels.
I for one hold freedom of speech to be sancrosanct, and being a student of history will never waver from its defense.
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#119Nostalgia. It is hard to follow all of the new trends. I feel like I'm becoming obsolete. And now with all of the AI hype, who knows what tomorrow brings. With past, you know what it was, you have a romanticized image about it. At least I do.
The past holds the roots of the future. I don't think we can shape a rational future without understanding the decisions of the past. Everyone doesn't need to understand the past but some do. It is not nostalgia for me. I study technical developments I didn't live though.
> I don't think we can shape a rational future
Unfortunately reality doesn't require us to, it's only our comfort that does.
Re: Ask HN: Why are we more and more talking about the past here on HN?
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think as you on this point, but the past couple of years have filled me with great doubt about how true this actually is.
About how true what is? What has happened on the internet in the past few years that is comparable to Nazi radio control and propaganda? Maybe the censurious social media apps booting off people with opposing opinions to liberal mainstream in collusion with intelligence agencies actively embedded in their organizations? But that just underscores the dangers of centralization. I suspect, based on your posturing in the…
Sorry, this part:
> it also enables a diversity of viewpoints to be expressed, which more often than not serve to regulate those in power as well as inform those without.
I have grown very doubtful about the notion that just having a diversity of viewpoints being expressed serves as a check to those in power, or that it serves to meaningfully inform people.
It increasingly appears to me that the sheer quantity of different viewpoints does the opposite of those things. It generates an ocean of emotional noise that provides cover for those in power to do what they wish, and encourages people to only accept information and views that support the opinions they already have rather than meaningfully informing them.
> I suspect, based on your posturing in the reply, however, that you've been convinced that more control is necessary to counter extreme x or y wing viewpoints
Your suspicion could not be more mistaken. I'm baffled as to what led you to it in the first place. I'm just saying that it is increasingly looking to me like the internet (especially social media) has managed to remove a lot of the benefits of free speech.
Saying that is far from saying "free speech is bad" or "speech needs to be regulated". It's saying that the mechanisms on the internet appear to amplify emotional or tribal, rather than rational or thought-out, responses. That sort of discourse has very little social upside.
Further, I suspect that those mechanisms are intentionally like that, because they provide the easiest and most profitable method of monetizing.