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

The Lost Chapter

aarongreenspan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 246 posts

Re: The Lost Chapter

#171

Post by intended »

tptacek wrote: post #149
corporalagumbo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are focusing on the weakest part of Greenspan's argument - the point where he comes closest to bitterness - I was wondering if you'd like to invest $20,000 in my new venture. I'd like to sell crack heroin to junkies in Detroit. I'm sure as a fellow champion of guilt-free founder consciences, you will support my endeavour as I give gangbangers the chan…

Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better. Do it and I'll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways to Partners In Health. There's an idea common to forums that I don't frequent that I recently learned of called an "ideological Turing test". The idea is to take a group of people divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a coherent argument that capture's the other side's…

We have the freedom to build what we see fit - without the need to to justify the act by saying it improves humanity.

If it doesn't improve humanity like a cure for cancer, but ends up creating happiness in the lives of its users, is that wrong?

I tried to get the spirit of the words. How did I do?

Quibbles: I thought several issues were conflated in the original post by grellas, so honestly I don't think I could possibly do justice to all the unstated assumptions.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#172

Post by cuergas »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #168
tptacek wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better. Do it and I'll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways to Partners In Health. There's an idea common to forums that I don't frequent that I recently learned of called an "ideological Turing test". The idea is to take a group of people divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a coherent argument that capture's the other side's…

Sorry, I am being dense: and, given the two possible results of the Turing test (population correctly/incorrectly guesses which is real/fake for each side), what are the implications for the argument, if any?

One implication is that people making arguments do not necessarily have to believe in them. And that anyone with adequate rhetorical skills can make any argument, even one that is not consistent with what they truly believe.

Example: Readers might believe some rambling gibberish about there being no need for any startup founder to have a conscience, and they might attribute it to the poster's own beliefs (it's ok not to have a conscience), when truthfully the poster might believe otherwise (he does not really believe in screwing people over, to the point of having no friends or a lifelong reputation as a con artist) and might just be advancing an idea that would benefit his business: the more social networking startups and the more money flowing into them, the better for those who take a cut.

The other implication is that you have to first understand a position in order to argue it effectively. The claim here is that one commenter does not actually comprehend the other commenter's position. And an easy way to show this is to ask each commenter to argue for the other's position, instead of against it.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#173

Post by bad_user »

just2n wrote: post #153
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart probably has more actionable data - from those purchases of condoms by a married man who did not last year, to the purchases of pregnancy tests of the woman who curiously appears just after him at the till register on lunchtimes. Add in the bottles of wine and the alka seltzer the day after, the purchase of womans underwear in sizes too big for his wife but the same size as his boxers, and the bra that won't…

You can purchase things at Walmart with cash. It's pretty much impossible to track purchases made with cash. You can't pay with an anonymous money source on the internet, and you can't obtain that much anonymity on Facebook.

If you can't wear some kind of mask a store could use face recognition for tracking customers. And I predict stores from the UK will start doing just that.

Yes you can pay with cash, but you have to be physically there to do that and until we'll be able to make anonymous payments on the Internet, nothing can guarantee that you are anonymous.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#174

Post by intended »

cuergas wrote: post #166
tatsuke95 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "actually contribute to the society" Facebook has created a vast amount of wealth for a huge number of people. If you believe in capitalism, then Facebook has benefited society greatly , by definition.

Does this also apply to Mexican drug cartels? Not that I am comparing FB to drug dealers, but I'm just curious how to apply this handy definition of capitalism. Are there any limitations?

I don't see where in capitalism illegal acts are included in its ambit.

It said let the markets decide, it didn't include freedoms to pursue crime.

At this point you could bring up the definition of criminal vs unethical.

Lets side step that by agreeing on the basic intuitions behind capitalism.

Capitalism is a system aimed at answering the question: what is the best way human beings can organize themselves to best distribute resources and maximize human well being while minimizing suffering.

There are certain acts and substances that can be shown to be immediately harmful to the well being of humanity and humans. Addiction causing drugs are one of them, and efforts to pursue it are marked as criminal, immoral and unethical.

Conflating Facebook with Drug cartels is conflating farmville with cocaine. It very clearly transcends all limitations on the immoral and unethical acts we would permit.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#175

Post by cuergas »

intended wrote: post #174
cuergas wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this also apply to Mexican drug cartels? Not that I am comparing FB to drug dealers, but I'm just curious how to apply this handy definition of capitalism. Are there any limitations?

I don't see where in capitalism illegal acts are included in its ambit. It said let the markets decide, it didn't include freedoms to pursue crime. At this point you could bring up the definition of criminal vs unethical. Lets side step that by agreeing on the basic intuitions behind capitalism. Capitalism is a system aimed at answering the question: what is the best way human beings can organize themselves to best d…

But I didn't conflate. I specifically said I was not comparing the two. It is simply an example that fits within his definition: it brings wealth to a large number of people.

You are bringing in other definitions of capitalism. I'm only commenting on his definition.

I'm not taking a jab at capitalism. I'm taking a jab at a sloppy definition.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#176

Post by intended »

baddox wrote: post #112
spitx wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart, even when it's potential for misuse of customer data is taken to it's negative extreme, is just a vendor. Not a repository of your most private data. Walmart cannot deduce from your pictures printed at their photo kiosk if you are having an extra-marital affair. It doesn't have that kind of "putting together two and two" power. Plus it doesn't share that with your other family members or suggest to them that…

> No current corporation, conglomerate or organization - Disney, Visa, Experian, Equifax, Transunion, ExxonMobil, Monsanto - has that kind of established and potential scope for intrusion into your life. I think that is a preposterous claim. Airlines know every vacation and business trip you've ever taken. Credit reporting agencies probably know more about your financial well-being than even you do. Heck, credit card…

Yeah but airlines don't know if you are flying with your mistress or your sister.

And credit reporting agencies don't have your IMs, or know that you mailed hotchick2012 43 times this week, and started doing so 5 months before you changed your profile status from its complicated to single.

Walmart doesn't have facial recognition cameras up in every store tracking you. So you can just go to another store and make your purchase, keeping all your patterns intact.

The issue with putting 2 and 2 together is an issue which reared its head only post the camibrian era like IT explosion.

The old big box retailers do not have the same level of connection to your thoughts and personal information the same way online companies do.

They could do that, but only after they drastically upgraded themselves to specifically start profiling and tracking each individual - essentially by becoming more like facebook/social networks.

Your argument soars and falls depending on how connected to your personal information/social network a retailer is.

The only likely exception to that is your pharmacist - their domain of knowledge gave them pretty deep insights into your life even before the advent of the net.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#177

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #129
corporalagumbo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. For someone at the very least arguably cheated out of a lot of wealth and at worst simply deceived and mistreated in a very nasty way by another human being, I think Greenspan writes with a tremendous amount of calm and balance, and also I don't think he is writing simply to vent bitterness or jealousy.

Yes, he absolutely is writing out of bitterness and jealousy.

[deleted]

Re: The Lost Chapter

#178

Post by jamesaguilar »

cuergas wrote: post #169
jamesaguilar wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this basically the same as saying tesla and spacex will fail because Elon Musk is a jackass?

Neither Tesla nor SpaceX rely on millions of fickle web users handing over their personal information and regularly signing in to a website to look at photos and status updates. Nor can they be easily replicated by a competitor who is not a jackass.

Apparently neither can Facebook, if recent attempts are any indication.

Re: The Lost Chapter

#179

Post by corporalagumbo »

tptacek wrote: post #149
corporalagumbo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are focusing on the weakest part of Greenspan's argument - the point where he comes closest to bitterness - I was wondering if you'd like to invest $20,000 in my new venture. I'd like to sell crack heroin to junkies in Detroit. I'm sure as a fellow champion of guilt-free founder consciences, you will support my endeavour as I give gangbangers the chan…

Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better. Do it and I'll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways to Partners In Health. There's an idea common to forums that I don't frequent that I recently learned of called an "ideological Turing test". The idea is to take a group of people divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a coherent argument that capture's the other side's…

Okay, here you are:

People should stop trying to make entrepreneurs feel guilty for not living up to their personal ethical standards. One of the advantages of our free society is that people can choose to work on weighty issues or fluffy diversions. As long as you abide by the law, you should not be criticised for the style of business you decide to pursue. If a lot of people can make money from social networking then that is definitionally a good thing (i.e. a good thing is a thing which makes some people money.)

Post reply on HN