Live data from Hacker News

Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

wh0rd.ca

141–150 of 248 posts

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if the elected government is actually evil? Ever heard the quote, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"? I don't think "taking advantage of all the benefits of a nation's resources and infrastructure while simultaneously contributing nothing, which I can only really get away with because I'm so successful" is a very good form of "resistance". Let's be frank here: there is absolutely no billiona…

>Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral? You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism. >We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake. No, we're talking about a society'…

> You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism.

He should give up his money because if you are a part of society and benefit from it, that obliges you to contribute to the maintenance of that society. It isn't about authoritarianism and your attempts to equate the two is ridiculous.

> No, we're talking about a society's allocation of resources. If a government cannot or will not allocate them to the benefit of a society, it has no moral right to them.

Then it should be replaced, or abandoned. The solution is not eating your cake and having it too and pretending that is righteous.

> This entire argument started out of the claim that billionaires getting tax breaks for philanthropy is wrong; that they should instead redirect that wealth to governments to do with as they will. If the actions of the government will do less good than whatever ends that philanthropy would have led to, then it is wrong to demand that the money be wasted that way.

Getting a tax break, an exemption. Not that all the philanthropy should go away, merely that they don't deserve special exemption for it... Which isn't even something I'm arguing!

I jumped in to point out that governments appear to waste money because people have different opinions of where money should go and the government represents people. It will always appear wasteful to somebody.

Then this whole thing somehow devolved into trying to justify tax evasion as a valid form of protest, which I find absolutely ridiculous.

> So your argument is that billionaires giving money to philanthropic causes

I never said that philanthropy was wrong. I said people should pay their taxes. Would you kindly stop trying to strawman me as an authoritarian populist who hates charity or whatever the fuck crazy nonsense you'll think of next?

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#142
post #15

"If your son is using Quake, you should make hime understand that this is not acceptable to you. You should ensure all the firearms in your house are carefully locked away, and have trigger locks installed. You should also bring your concerns to the attention of his school." Holy moly!

I guess I was hacking at a young age then. Obtaining the pak1.pak file from a friend who had the CD automatically turned the freeware version into the full version of the game. The tough part was transferring it over a 28.8 baud modem. Took all blasted night on my dads "borrowed" Pentium 90. Oof...kids with broadband these days don't know how easy they have it.

I remember boobs.jpg loading one... line... at... a... time

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#143
post #43

Is your son or daughter safe from the Russian menace "Tetris"? Some common symptoms include them attempting to organize their room into well fitting shapes such as neatly fitting boxes. True Hackers use Compuserve or Prodigy.

You laugh, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_effect

This nearly killed me with Trackmania a few years ago and learning to drive a real car. In Trackmania you had to slam the steering to one side when turning. On a highway... not so much

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral? You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism. >We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake. No, we're talking about a society'…

> You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism. He should give up his money because if you are a part of society and benefit from it, that obliges you to contribute to the maintenance of that society. It isn't abou…

>He should give up his money because if you are a part of society and benefit from it, that obliges you to contribute to the maintenance of that society.

Sure. But that's not what you're actually arguing for; the point you're making is instead that you are obliged to give your money to the government in the hopes that they will contribute to the maintenance of that society. If I or anyone else can and am/are willing to do it more efficiently than the government can or will, you would still demand it go through the government, for no more justification than the fig leaf of the will of the people, which is not a homogeneous thing in any case as you pointed out and therefore is not some sacred duty that only the government is morally authorized to perform. If a billionaire or anyone else can make their money work better for a society than the government can, they should be allowed to.

>Then this whole thing somehow devolved into somehow trying to justify tax evasion as a valid form of protest

Except it didn't? I have never made an argument either for tax evasion or protest in this thread. The closest I got was the Jefferson quote, which is in the context of an actually evil government. I'm making the moral argument for billionaire philanthropy. And yes, removing tax breaks for said philanthropy will reduce it. It may marginally increase tax revenue. And on the whole, the result of that will probably, in my opinion, be a bad thing. It will result in more suffering than allowing tax breaks for philanthropy. My understanding is that you accept that this is true, and are saying that even though it is the case, it is still morally superior for that wealth to go to less effective government projects than more effective philanthropy.

>I never said that philanthropy was wrong.

So when you said "That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral" what is immoral, exactly? Because reading that paragraph, the only act that seems to refer to is "philanthropy."

Also, you think I'm strawmanning you? You've claimed that I assume moral superiority for not paying taxes, that I'm advocating for purely extractive economic activity and tax evasion from billionaires, and that my entire point is about masking greed through virtuous language. If you have a point that's not just handwaving away inefficiencies in government as an unimpeachable divine will of the people made manifest, I have yet to hear it. Taxes are not a moral good. They are a strategy for asset reallocation. If they work well, fine. If they don't, we should not pretend that we have to pay them for any reason other than the threat of force. If billionaires can do better than the government can through philanthropy, great! Let them. If it seems to be working - and a large part of philanthropy seems to be working - then incentivize that behavior, socially through status or economically through tax exemptions.

There are things that tax is necessary for. Critical infrastructure, the unsexy parts of building and maintaining a society (roads, sewers, etc), legislative and executive matters, national defense. There are things that both public money and private money can be useful for - social welfare, education, research, etc. Often, the private money results in much better outcomes in fair trials; it is less bounded by realpolitik and is more agile in redeployment to more effective methods. Often, the tax money is much greater than what is actually necessary for the achieved purpose. The United States spends a roughly equal amount of its tax income on public healthcare as the UK does, and has nothing comparable to the NHS. When it tries to reduce spending, it does so not by adapting itself to the times, reinventing itself like any long-running institution should aim to do, but by accumulating another layer of cruft, becoming ever greater, ever less efficient. The system creaks under the weight of its debts, just as the VA offices creak under the weight of thousands of tons of paperwork, as the halls of power creak under the load of yet more stultifying regulation, presented only to entrench the powers that be. It creaks under the weight of politicians made fat over the wealth of the people, vying for power among the crumbling institutions that first generated that wealth, now dilapidated, hollowed out and filled again with sycophants and psychopaths.

Pay your taxes. But don't pretend that paying taxes is morally superior to just giving money to a good cause.

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#145

Even better - you can now troll Bill Gates by reminding him that Linux was both more successful than and outlasted his marriage:)

I come to Hacker News to avoid garbage like this.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#146
post #11

Even better - you can now troll Bill Gates by reminding him that Linux was both more successful than and outlasted his marriage:)

You would be an asshole though.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#147
post #29
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be an asshole though.

Maybe, but billionaires shouldn’t exist even if they are philanthropic. There’s a reason Bill Gates is a household name and many other innovators are not, and it involves a lot of zeroes. If you are going to be a billionaire, you surrender your life to being on the front page of the tabloids. In my mind the only reason to continue working after making around $10 million is greed. Bill Gates himself cites his busy sch…

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#150
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once had a scammer call me, claiming to be from Microsoft support and trying to convince me to install a RAT. When he asked if I was using Windows or Mac, I replied "Linux." He was aghast, saying that was "illegal" and he would be reporting me for breaking the law unless I complied with his directives. Had a good laugh at that one.

I told him we didn't have a computer. That didn't register at all, he still tried to get me to install something, somehow, despite my insistence.

"Okay, let me toggle the bootloader in. Call me back in about an hour."
Post reply on HN