Our efforts, in part, define us • Hacker News Board

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#151

Post by gsf_emergency_2 » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 5:34 PM UTC

tyre wrote: post #149

gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had Archimedes lived to teach the Romans his calculus we might have reached Mars by 500 AD https://youtu.be/h0gPomI3h8o that's not from hesitation. And one can only call the Syracuse invasion an inefficiency in hindsight. The immediate opportunity of a ~million Roman lives compared to other hypothetical opportunities (One might guess that opportunities of the win-win type weren't covered by Munger's model)

It's highly unlikely that the Romans could have had the industrial revolution[0], so I'm doubtful that calculus alone would have gotten them to Mars. [0]: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...

A different take:

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-18904-3

(Maybe the Greeks' themselves could have done it, they already had a rudimentary steam engine )

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#152

Post by 1970-01-01 » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 5:36 PM UTC

tyre wrote: post #149

gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had Archimedes lived to teach the Romans his calculus we might have reached Mars by 500 AD https://youtu.be/h0gPomI3h8o that's not from hesitation. And one can only call the Syracuse invasion an inefficiency in hindsight. The immediate opportunity of a ~million Roman lives compared to other hypothetical opportunities (One might guess that opportunities of the win-win type weren't covered by Munger's model)

It's highly unlikely that the Romans could have had the industrial revolution[0], so I'm doubtful that calculus alone would have gotten them to Mars. [0]: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...

Yes, the scientific method pre-dates the industrial revolution for a reason. You simply can't get cracking on rocket science without foundational science.[-3]

[-3]: https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/AIDS_(Space_Program)#AIDS_Sp...

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#153

Post by fellowniusmonk » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 5:38 PM UTC

Etheryte wrote: post #146

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culture has created this odd myth that if something is semantic it doesn't matter. That communication is just another soft skill. Humans make meaning, we are the only source of complex, long term, meaning generation we have ever observed. We emit meaning the way a star emits photons. Sure, a lot of natural processes would still exist if we weren't around. But in this universe, perhaps the only one that exists, we are…

This type of thinking should've died with the contemporaries of Darwin who didn't believe in evolution. We live on a planet full of complex, intelligent life, we're far from the only ones giving things meaning. Animals have social structures and emotions that are as sophisticated as our own, it's only ego to think that we're unique in giving life meaning.

The statement was qualified, if you have objective evidence for species propagating long term complex meaning that we have observed as the written word or other externalized means please demonstrate. I do not understand why a person would say that demonstratably dolphins have done more meaning generation than people?

The universe is full of possibilities, I'm trying to establish an empirical/observable floor not the ceiling.

Other species are also intelligent and create meaning, but I don't know of any proposed metric where their impact is remotely close to ours, though it's not 0 and beyond that they are part of our causal chain as well.

I personally wouldn't mind if we kept giving dogs and dolphins and other animals tools for long term complex communication but some people think we shouldn't interfere in that kind of way in the development of other species. I'd be interested in hearing if you hold an intentional development/don't interfere position.

It's ok and true to say people are empirically special and unique in actual observed reality. If there is a dolphin universe where they are the dominant species and have libraries and journals and satellites than that's fine, but we haven't observed that to be the case.

Again, there is a world of possibilities and everyone should explore that, but I am talking about the one universe we have observed and our empirical observations within it. I like to delineate between extrapolative and speculative ceilings and empirical floors.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#154

Post by mrandish » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 5:44 PM UTC

tofuahdude wrote: post #119

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culture has created this odd myth that if something is semantic it doesn't matter. That communication is just another soft skill. Humans make meaning, we are the only source of complex, long term, meaning generation we have ever observed. We emit meaning the way a star emits photons. Sure, a lot of natural processes would still exist if we weren't around. But in this universe, perhaps the only one that exists, we are…

I really like the way you said we emit meaning. It is kind of funny, that we seek meaning and/or purpose in everything - our lives, our actions, our thoughts - but there is a nice change in perspective in considering it as something that we produce rather than find.

Yeah, a typical advice trope is "Find things with meaning and do those" which isn't very useful once you understand we create meaning internally. Meaning is an individualized perception not an extrinsic property.

This gets tricky because our perceptions can be influenced by societal expectations of which things should be meaningful - as if it's an objective property. It's easy to think of activities to which many people would respond "Oh, that must be soooo meaningful" and yet it's entirely possible you may not personally experience a sense of meaning from doing them - yet feel like you're supposed to. It's important to realize there's nothing wrong with that (or with you). You may not experience the 'expected meaning' meaning while doing some "charitably noble activity" widely thought to be meaningful, yet discover something else few would associate with "meaningful" does evoke meaning for you.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#155

Post by w10-1 » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 5:51 PM UTC

I think the concern is deep, deeper than mitigations like going up the abstraction chain from coding to design, or lessons learned from failure.

It's very, very difficult to really realize that one's sacrifice was meaningless or mistaken.

Effort - sacrifice - in particular is for the sake of something else; you burn your precious life/time for the sake of X, and then X doesn't work or turns out to be an illusion. You can console yourself with lessons learned, but it's a bit hollow. And worse, if you wasted someone else's time? Almost unrecoverable.

Then you're not only less useful (stale skills), but also less susceptible to going gung-ho on the new goal X', making you a poor candidate for any employers or investors since being resilient and formidable are necessary for any uncertain endeavor.

The Confucian Ta Hsueh (Great Learning) says "Every day, make it new" was inscribed on the bathtub of the first Shang dynasty emperor: 湯之盤銘曰：「茍日新，日日新，又日新

Traditionally, the solution was a kind of selflessness, where you realize that even if (as with Ecclesiastes) empires you build will fall into dust, you can still help others. But in an age where interactions reduce to endless scrolling and online forums, it's not clear where and how to do that.

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#156

Post by Liquix » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 6:03 PM UTC

w10-1 wrote: post #155

I think the concern is deep, deeper than mitigations like going up the abstraction chain from coding to design, or lessons learned from failure. It's very, very difficult to really realize that one's sacrifice was meaningless or mistaken. Effort - sacrifice - in particular is for the sake of something else; you burn your precious life/time for the sake of X, and then X doesn't work or turns out to be an illusion. You…

> even if ... empires you build will fall into dust, you can still help others

A beautiful sentiment reminiscent of Zen. Everything is temporary, nothing lasts, everything you build or accomplish will crumble into dust and be forgotten. On its face this appears as nihilism, but on the other side of the realization, you're still here - so what else could there be to do besides seize the moment and live it to the fullest?

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#157

Post by cortesoft » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 6:05 PM UTC

tofuahdude wrote: post #119

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Culture has created this odd myth that if something is semantic it doesn't matter. That communication is just another soft skill. Humans make meaning, we are the only source of complex, long term, meaning generation we have ever observed. We emit meaning the way a star emits photons. Sure, a lot of natural processes would still exist if we weren't around. But in this universe, perhaps the only one that exists, we are…

I really like the way you said we emit meaning. It is kind of funny, that we seek meaning and/or purpose in everything - our lives, our actions, our thoughts - but there is a nice change in perspective in considering it as something that we produce rather than find.

This conversation is reminding me of one of the most formative books in my development: Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning". It explores this idea, that the strive to find meaning is the central defining force for humanity, set against the backdrop of brutal destruction of the holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_Search_for_Meaning

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#158

Post by RataNova » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 6:08 PM UTC

I think the hardest part is that effort wasn't just a means to an end; it was the thing. Not always pleasant, not always noble, but it gave shape to our days, our roles, even our self-worth. It reminds me how fragile that sense of value is when it's tied to output

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#159

Post by RataNova » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 6:10 PM UTC

bsenftner wrote: post #9

Maybe this is a neurodivergent thing, but I have, as long as I can remember, always had the following progression in my mind: "What are you doing? No, that's this situation's name, what is this really?" and I'd continue a few times seeking the "larger problem, the more basic problem being solved" that whatever I was doing "really is". That "basic problem" was "communicating" far more frequently than I expected, and t…

Framing it all as "communicating" is oddly clarifying. It explains why misalignment causes so much friction

Re: Our efforts, in part, define us

#160

Post by raincole » Wed, Oct 01, 2025, 6:11 PM UTC

Every time we invented some higher level of abstraction for software development, it became harder, not easier. The required effort, collectively, has only been increasing.

Nature language programming (aka "AI") seems to be on the same track.