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

No Billionares at FOSDEM

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 213 posts

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#141

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

throw5959 wrote: post #80
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is? Like, this sounds like a pretty silly claim: > All engineers and other professionals told him that landing rockets is bullshit Where did you hear that?

Well I heard it myself from practically anybody up until 2015. I even attended quite a lot of conference talks on this topic... I'm sure it's not hard to find it online, famously a NASA director (I think?) did so.

You're saying every engineer and every person with any other type of profession you've ever spoken with, said that it was impossible to land a rocket? I feel like plenty of professionals don't even have an opinion on the matter.

Even if that's true, there's still every engineer and every other professional in the world you haven't spoken with. To take an example, I'm an engineer, I didn't say it. That disproves the claim.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#142

Post by lolinder »

phoronixrly wrote: post #140
lolinder wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're taking that quote out of context to imply that the guideline says that's the only reason to flag. That's not what it's saying, it's saying that you shouldn't post comments complaining about spam—flag and move on. There are plenty of other reasons to flag a story, and it being a spiteful piece devoid of any semblance of curiosity seems as good reason as any.

Yes, apparently one of these reasons is "I didn't really like it". Good job!

As I said:

> In all, I'm unimpressed with the piece and the comment section reflected the mood of the piece: kind of mindlessly cranky without much thought.

Thanks for proving my point.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#143

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #64

There are two things that don't sit right with me: 1. "the FOSS community shouldered the burden – both with our labor and our wallets – of a massive exodus onto our volunteer-operated servers" -- this implies that users actually using decentralized services is a burden, a bad thing. Or rather, that a) it would be much better if Twitter was better and people just continued using Twitter rather than FOSS platforms b) t…

> That feels like an very common envy-based position, trying to tear people down because they are better off.

No, it's not because they are better off. It's because (a) to get control of that level of economic resources in this economy, you generally have to do something with many questionable aspects to it, despite its (potential) popularity and (b) you don't need to remain a billionaire or show signs of trying to increase your holdings. Mackenzie Bezos shows the way here - still deliriously rich but giving away money like a bank on fire and having plain her goal to ultimately donate essentially all of it.

The billionaires we don't want at FOSDEM are not just rich, they want to be richer and they are, from our perspective, demonstrably causing harm.

Yes, I happen to think that marginal tax rates above some threshold should probably be on the order of 95%, but I don't begrudge people making a lot of money by doing something good and/or for a lot of people.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#144

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

duxup wrote: post #67
bambax wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money in itself is a problem. People with that amount of wealth are separated from the rest of humanity (and most of the time go to great lengths to make sure they absolutely never cross path with ordinary humans). They don't have the same goals as everyone else, they don't face the same issues, they contribute to climate change in extreme proportions while escaping its most urgent consequences (for the time bein…

People with not as much wealth are more reasonable or something? I don't buy it. We're talking about a conference that apparently puts itself up for sale in a way ... that's the problem. The other stuff is a silly distraction. You're not solving anything with a personal wreath rule, conference is still for sale. Dude with slightly less wealth is going to just buy in...

> People with not as much wealth are more reasonable or something?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduce...

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#145

Post by throw5959 »

michaelt wrote: post #129
throw5959 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apollo 11 had a three stage rocket and every stage was discarded. SpaceX is obviously not the first company to land something - but landing a rocket booster that just performed an orbital lift is the interesting and extremely hard thing to do. The payload can be entirely designed to land - but the booster has many other constraints (payload weight and its desired velocity and trajectory being some of them). To do wha…

I'm talking about the Apollo Lunar Module. You know, this bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module that descended to the moon, landed, some guys walked out and grabbed some moon rocks, then they took off again and made it back to earth. That's a rocket-propelled space vehicle gently landing tail first, and ready for immediately reuse. Given that it clearly had been done, I doubt anyone who knew what they…

I don't know how to put this if you don't see the difference yourself by now, but that's not an orbital rocket that could lift anything from Earth nor land back there. One huge problem is hypersonic aerodynamics, something you absolutely don't care about on the Moon. The payload weight can be much greater due to tiny gravity. Google "tyranny of the rocket equation".

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#146

Post by throw5959 »

lamontcg wrote: post #116
throw5959 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I'm not saying Musk is the only person who has interesting things to say about it. You're absolutely correct about these other people and I listen to them too. But you're not giving Musk enough credit. All engineers and other professionals told him that landing rockets is bullshit, and what is interesting here is that he went and made it happen anyways. I'm not talking just about the engineering, everything is…

> All engineers and other professionals told him that landing rockets is bullshit You literally responded to a guy citing Lars Blackmore, who is the engineer that designed their landing algorithm--which was developed at NASA's JPL lab (before SpaceX existed). Musk bet on landing rockets _because_ engineers told him that it was possible.

Oh no, Musk convinced the engineers it's possible. One of the interesting things about him.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#147

Post by throw5959 »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #141
throw5959 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I heard it myself from practically anybody up until 2015. I even attended quite a lot of conference talks on this topic... I'm sure it's not hard to find it online, famously a NASA director (I think?) did so.

You're saying every engineer and every person with any other type of profession you've ever spoken with, said that it was impossible to land a rocket? I feel like plenty of professionals don't even have an opinion on the matter. Even if that's true, there's still every engineer and every other professional in the world you haven't spoken with. To take an example, I'm an engineer, I didn't say it. That disproves the c…

Please, this is a conversation, not math exam.

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#148

Post by immibis »

lvass wrote: post #30
bogwog wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A protest like this is basically just IRL adblock. Do you not use ad blockers because of "free speech" ideology?

It's more like installing adblock in the computers of everyone in a room without asking for permission.

Imagine if Windows came with adblock out of the box. It would be the best thing Microsoft ever did.

Now imagine the next best thing: if Dell installed adblock on all its Windows before you bought them. It would be the best thing Dell ever did.

Now imagine the next next best thing: if someone broke into a Dell warehouse, installed adblock on all the computers, and didn't do anything else. This would be a horrible crime and the perpetrator must be brought to justice post-haste!

Re: No Billionares at FOSDEM

#150

Post by baggy_trough »

immibis wrote: post #148
lvass wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like installing adblock in the computers of everyone in a room without asking for permission.

Imagine if Windows came with adblock out of the box. It would be the best thing Microsoft ever did. Now imagine the next best thing: if Dell installed adblock on all its Windows before you bought them. It would be the best thing Dell ever did. Now imagine the next next best thing: if someone broke into a Dell warehouse, installed adblock on all the computers, and didn't do anything else. This would be a horrible crim…

Some might think those were good things because they were making it easier for people to access the content they wanted. That's the exact opposite of what Drew is proposing.
Post reply on HN