Live data from Hacker News

I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

medium.com

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#131

Strong, much-needed words here: "Right now, entrepreneurs are trying to fix things that aren’t broken. And we can all name a lot of things that are broken: healthcare, education, homelessness and poverty, food waste, climate change…" Damn right. Those are real problems. But then the author praises Elon Musk for sending people to Mars. For prioritising space exploration over alleviating famine, poverty, illiteracy, wh…

Well, one could argue that spreading humans outside this single planet is a requirement for long-term survival of the species, and thus as important or more important than those other causes you mention. I don't personally subscribe to this belief, but many people do.

The primary obstacle of the "real problems" mentioned is people.

For example, consider that:

Sometimes people don't want to be helped (see: many homeless)

Sometimes leaders don't want their people to be helped, because they gain from keeping them down (see: African warlords / government leaders embezzling aid)

When faced with SOCIAL problems like these, it's no wonder that someone of a 'hacker' mindset like Elon instead prefers to devote his time to solving problems which instead have technological roadblocks (well, maybe not entirely applicable in the case of Tesla or SolarCity).

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#132
Good article, but part of the problem is that software developers, due to their social class and mental make-up, tend to not have the sort of immediate experience and understanding needed to take on real-world problems like homelessness and the health care system. They would have to work hard to get out of their epistemological bubbles. Of course, some of them do that, but it seems to be rather unusual.

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#133
post #66
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all about people who've seen how absurdly rich you can get, and want a piece of that. That about sums it up. If people suddenly became rich through farming, you'd see people flocking to the mid-west. A lot of people claim a higher calling or passion for tech, but it's mostly just dollar signs in their eyes.

I had a passion for tech. Then it was beaten out of me by large, successful tech companies. Some day, the majority of us who are relegated to inane, shitty work will wake up and acknowledge that. So what do you do when you are a capable programmer who isn't rich enough to work on something challenging/interesting/meaningful like electric cars or rockets? Maximize expected value. That's not immoral. That's the shitty…

Forgive me if this is without the applicable context, but sp527, I sincerely doubt you are a person of average means.

I mean neither to backhanded compliment the abilities of the HN crowd, nor to - as seems increasingly common when I find myself in the change - state interfaces of society, silently denigrate you by implicit reference to privilege I may not have. If you can take my statement literally, that would be superb!

I mean, I think the word average when it comes to ability or performance or self assessment is poorly used. Too frequently it is meant as self denigrating before a audience (which, as with above, I did not infer nor deliberately infer from your comment) and when it is used plainly, as in "I'm an average kinda guy" I find it too often misleads one into imagining one's interlocutor is saying they are a unremarkable character personally. It's a safety pitch in a chat up line, for one example of use subset my last classification of "average" use.

I take your statement literally in a socio - economic and intellectual sense, but with a skew that probably does put you quite a bit above the census bureau averages in most ways.

But what does frustrate me, when self description of "average" is used, is that perfectly "average" people perform quite wondrous feats or succeed with way above the deviation accomplishment, because one is able to trade in life.

I have just remembered this, prompted by your comment: when in my early twenties, despite I had received a privileged education, imagined what I could do by trading futures in myself. Take my thirties away and give that time to me now. Forget my personal growth (that was a biggie I left too late, beware!) because now I want to design things 24/7/365. And so on and so forth. I estimated not my ability or relative ability, but looked about at how long (by mere guesstimate) things I admired took to do, when I imagined most on that job were going home normal hours to wives and children, and having weekends and social lives, and the odd sick day or holiday, and maybe only reading two or three work related books a year, max, and certainly not consuming a subset of citeseer in unbroken mind-high caffeinated sessions which cared little to distinguish weeks, let alone days.

Quite apart form the fact you are either a engineer or have some capacity in that regard, the bounds of possible optimisation achievable from "a person of average means" I think must be very excellent indeed. How indeed, did mankind excel, when there was just a few of us in any social group hanging about with no tools or fire or built shelter and so on? Someone hit it right out the park, not merely once, but probably a while lot of times in a row, to get us through some earlier developing stages, just as we have some now, particularly in systematising and understanding what all this software lark is really about and how to make all of us good at it, instead of - one wonders - mere self defined _potential_ outlier points around some average.

I'm also quite sure, that when you are in your metier, when you are at a fundamental level aware you are where you want to be, you will find relevant skills or muscles or abilities notably at a higher functional level than you ever imagined they could be. Because there is something reflexive, compounding, about the human existence at least I have known, just as equally there can be compounding, confounding negative spirals. I believe there must be a art I have not learned in my 40 some years, of neatly skipping sideways from the spirals and letting one's instincts guide us to where some factor or energy or whatever phenomenon it may be is compounding and positive. If we could so dance with our own entropy, what a dance it would be. But meanwhile, I think "average" is most definitely not always average.

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter and Facebook may have value in dollar signs (OK maybe not Twitter right now), but I'd really question how much value they have provided to society as a whole. It seems like all Facebook wants to do is built an ecosystem, lock you in it, and milk you for data they can sell to advertisers.

Seriously? A billion+ people use Facebook products, many hundreds of millions very happily.

I can only ever see this as a kind of broken transference of emotions that normally attach to the pleasures (and trials) of proximity to one's friends.

Most simplistically, we have traversed a social arc between almost hard - wired numerical limits to groups, by tribe or family or township, or travelling together, through dissociation of conurbations and suburbia and the popularism of the "atomic family" which mae feel-good about a life within a picket fence and a statutory numberof offspring, all separated from relations, co-workers and even neighbors by white-picket and loosely connecting these nodes via tin chariot (well, steel, but tin chariot scans more to my liking), through synchronous but limited (by cost of area code) node to node networks (POTS) until today one only has to sign up for Facebook and one is inundated not only with "friends" * but the immediacy of multifaceted interaction in many time-division multiplexes of attention, which is in comparison with our earlier means to communicate, infinitely closer to the real thing of mingling among people we know or vaguely know.

Meanwhile, for a litany of reasons, from specialisation in study to the economic drive that demands ever greater input from students to adjuncts and in similar fashion in business demand for narrow "verticals", silos of expertise, the straining naturally not automatically robust interdisciplinary lines of correspondence, even to the distraction of once innocently the snake game, but our phones themselves...

It feels to me as if we have been corralled, and I do not say this has been to any grand plan, but it feels to me as if our lives are inverted. Or at least I felt that I experienced a inversion: My work was a primary social interaction, and home a "refuge" or rather a seclusion at best, a isolation at worst, and it could feel so even when not alone, if I was in my wife's bad books. But now instantaneously I can obtain the adrenaline, serotonin, the chemistry caused by high value, high consequence socialising, whilst individually I cannot communicate silently my mood with a gesture or sigh, whilst individually I can be picked off for especial treatment to pump my brain chemistry in the right way to receive a advertisement, without someone guffawing what a load of tripe the product is or telling me I won't like a violent scene in a movie or..

I may not be doing so well at this, but I am trying to describe how I believe Facebook and imitators can co-opt the physical self that is keyed to complex social interaction, [edit to add next few words] and in a larger social context high value things such a reputation and acceptance carry heavy processing burdens as well, which potentially may impair other critical thought. [end edit]

Along with the chemical and thence psychological rewards, comes very possibly "being happy" or "a happy user", yet because we are alone, a sole observer, I see risks. Even in company we have created our unique context. I recently described the difficulty of discussing code between two on even the same part of a project, to being able to tell from what they say how, by reading what articles or using what sites, your love on the sofa with you has arrived at a particular remark, without them explaining it. I said just keep adding bells on that one." Because social interaction at a wider mark is high value and high risk, and because we process so much of this intuitively or subconsciously, any extension of the framework that omits balances and checks, which are provided in face to face society where communication is necessarily open, I believe there is significant potential for undesirable system wide side effects on a individual.

So I do not think that users are in of themselves happy _because of a product like Facebook, but Facebook has created for them a simulacrum. I believe like any simulation which is necessarily crude, inherently non - deterministic, and isolating whilst increasing sensory or other input, such a system is not inherently not dangerous.

*That experience was made even fresher to me, not very long ago, when I first time ever registered on FB, and before anything else, entered a pre-pay cell number. I was quite confused a while how many people seemed to know me, even invite me to be friends, who seemed to stretch my recollection a bit much, before I twigged the number had been allocated not long before I bought the phone. Invites to be friends were surprising - I checked and I don't share a name with anyone in this other social group...

[Edits for punctuation, minor clarity]

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#135
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Going to Mars is easy, colonizing Mars is a pipe dream. I can't tell you how much I appreciate hearing this position from someone on this site. I've tried to make that argument here and elsewhere, and it's met with an almost religious fury. I really appreciate that I'm not alone in my intense skepticism of this "colonies on Mars: coming soon!" nonsense. I'll believe it when we've solved, or at least even begun to ad…

Perhaps the attitude of "Let's do it!" is exactly what's needed for the first step of solving big, difficult problems?

Resources and talent get things done, attitudes do not.

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone actually made a serious case that innovation has stopped? The closest I've ever seen are people asserting that things they feel are obvious in retrospect aren't innovations, but that's just a silly bias.

Stopped no. Stagnated, yes. I've made at least a dozen posts explaining the Stagnation Hypothesis, there's a long list of people in Silicon Valley who take it seriously. The basic idea is that since '73 the rate of change has slowed down. This excludes computation of course. It is an explanation for present day economic stresses in the West that I believe hangs together far better than the mainstream theories that ge…

What happened in 1973 to cause this to kickoff?

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet if facebook would disappear, nothing would be lost. Somebody would overtake the position in no time. This is not true for real value added companies.

By that logic, Ford produces no "[added] real value." It seems like only monopolies can add real value in your criteria.

Facebook is monopoly, yet they do not. Tesla, Canonical, Red Hat,AWS, National Geographic, Nikon etc etc.. is not monopoly, but they do have real added value.

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#138
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corner grocery stores don't get hundreds of millions in VC funding, hire the brightest of this generation, and make them stock shelves of soup.

Maybe the 'brightest of this generation' should start companies working on 'real problems' instead of stocking soup at companies working on 'trivial problems'. VC money is apparently being thrown at anything and everything, after all.

Step up and pitch your better idea, then. Money's chasing the ideas it has available.

Re: I’m Done Pretending SF Tech Is Visionary

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because people try, on occasion, to fight a Nash equilibrium does not mean they can win. Hell, I bet people do that by mistake. Often even. Only if they win would it actually mean something. Call me when donations (or government policy) end poverty, for instance.

Social Security basically ended extreme "living on cat-food" poverty among the elderly.

At the cost of being too expensive to sustain.
Post reply on HN