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

Slop Terrifies Me

ezhik.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 370 posts

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#181

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

djoldman wrote: post #177
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, it's possible to make hiking boots that last a lot longer than others. But if the requirement is to have it last for just 20 miles, it's better to pay less for one that won't last as long. Sure, but the OP's concern is whether this chokes off innovation. Is there some better kind of hiking boot, longer-lasting and cheaper and maybe more comfortable, that we've never found because the shoemakers who'd b…

Possibly. But that question is impossible to answer and therefore can justify no recommended changes to the current state.

Which is why the source article did not recommend any changes to the current state.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#182

Post by 93po »

doctorwho42 wrote: post #171
kryogen1c wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should also be noted that most companies that make high quality (last decades) low volume goods go out of business; people vote with their dollars and dont want the capex. Put another way, who here wants a car that costs more than their house? Or shoes that cost 2000$?

Or, wealth inequality has gotten so out of hand that people are forced to buy the cheaper products. It's the age old paradigm of buying a pair of shoes/boots, the poor man keeps buying $20 shoes/boots that wear out in a year or two. The wealthy man looks perplexed and states, "this is why they are poor, they don't understand investing in a quality pair of shoes/boots... For a measly $100 they could buy a pair of shoe…

idk if this is useful info but at least in my case i tend towards cheaper items because

1. i dont want to worry about them getting damaged or lost or stolen

2. my preferences will likely change in a couple years

3. i may not want the item as much as i think i do

i've owned a very expensive watch (many thousands of dollars) and i find myself almost never wearing it, both bc the style isnt exactly what im into these days, but i also worry about banging it on anything or the smallest scratches. it's nice to wear a cheaper watch (only a few hundred dollars in value) and just sort of not care about it.

i've had my handful of "buy it for life" purchases and i'm struggling to think of literally any item like that i've purchased that i still use

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#183

Post by Davidzheng »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #161
Davidzheng wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People living in less advanced economies will do OK, but the rest of us not so much" how is this possible? are the less advanced economies protected from outside influences? are they also protected from immigration?

Not OP, but assuming I am following the argument correctly, I think parent is referring to something else. Advanced economies have participants, who function well in that environment and are shaped by it to a large degree. As a result, if one was to ask them to get food in an environment, where it is not as easily accessible as it is today, they might stumble. On the other hand, in the old country, a lot of people I…

ah makes a lot of sense! thanks!

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#184

Post by shimman »

doctorwho42 wrote: post #171
kryogen1c wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should also be noted that most companies that make high quality (last decades) low volume goods go out of business; people vote with their dollars and dont want the capex. Put another way, who here wants a car that costs more than their house? Or shoes that cost 2000$?

Or, wealth inequality has gotten so out of hand that people are forced to buy the cheaper products. It's the age old paradigm of buying a pair of shoes/boots, the poor man keeps buying $20 shoes/boots that wear out in a year or two. The wealthy man looks perplexed and states, "this is why they are poor, they don't understand investing in a quality pair of shoes/boots... For a measly $100 they could buy a pair of shoe…

This might be true once in the past but even the "quality" brands are garbage today. It's all being made from the same factories with the same materials, with the same business magnates forcing worse quality at higher costs.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#185

Post by slekker »

direwolf20 wrote: post #157
hgs3 wrote: post #95

Why is slop assumed inevitable? These models are plagiarization and copyright laundering machines. We need a great AI model reset whereby all published works are assumed to opt-out of training and companies pay to train on your data. We've seen what AI can do, now fund the creators.

Who's going to enforce that, exactly?

Y' know there's this thing called a government

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#186

Post by pixl97 »

graemep wrote: post #80
kubb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder, will the rich start hiring elaborate casts of servants including butlers, footmen, lady's maids, and so on, since they'll be the only ones with the income?

They already do and always have. They never stopped hiring butlers (who are pretty well paid BTW), chefs, chauffeurs, maids, gardeners, nannies..... The terminology may have changed a bit, but they still employ people to do stuff for them One big difference is while professional class affluent people will hire cleaners or gardeners or nannies for a certain number or hours they cannot (at least in rich countries) hire…

>increasingly hostile to ordinary people educating their kids outside school

There is a whole lot more nuance here than you're giving the topic.

There is one side that wants to give their kids a good education, they have the resources and the motivation to ensure they come out ahead.

They are not the problem, the problem is the other side of this coin.

Where I grew up there were a lot of homeschooled kids that belonged to religious organizations. These groups had very little motivation to ensure they were intelligent, but instead nice dumb little worker bees that would stay with said organization and have little ability to work with the outside world at large. They were also at a much higher risk of being sexually abused/sexually trafficked as they were given little to no education about sex or risky adults.

I still remember being a kid myself and having to educate these other kids my age because they were missing large chunks of important information about the world.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#188

Post by pixl97 »

glitchc wrote: post #117
coldtea wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case, It doesn't need to imply anything. It's an ideology, those promoting it will say whatever BS attracts people to it. In practice, what is happening in capitalist countries since 1970s (when they abandoned all pretense) is that the rich get way richer and everybody else is fucked.

Versus what exactly? Communism? Where the rich got richer faster and people got fucked faster?

At the end of the day Capitalism and Communism have nothing to do with authoritarianism and liberalism/democracy. An authoritarian capitalist country is a perfectly valid type of government as there has never existed a 'pure' capitalistic governed country.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#189

Post by shimman »

aspaviento wrote: post #39
gib444 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a billionaire have to associate with poor people? They can live in a complete bubble: house in the hills, driven by a chauffeur, private jets, private islands for holidays etc...?

The people who cook for them, the people who clean for them, the ones who take care of their kids, the one who sell them stuff or serve them in restaurants...

nah, if slave owners like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington could reorient their entire lives around not seeing the "ick" of chattel slavery I think modern billionaires can do the same thing even easier now if they wanted.

Re: Slop Terrifies Me

#190

Post by pixl97 »

jwarden wrote: post #87
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a lot of people, capitalism values them as approaching zero, anything that alters that valuation (without reducing population) is contrary to capitalism. Capitalism means the rich must get richer, they own the resources and means of production, they take the reward. It comes to a point where they need an underclass to insulate them from the masses; look how cheaply Trump bought his paramilitary though, he onl…

Capitalism just means private citizens can own the means of production (e.g. start a business, buy stock) and earn a return on investment. It doesn’t mean only the rich must get richer. It means anyone who saves and invests their money instead of spending it gets richer. However capitalism is perfectly compatible with a progressives taxation system such that the rich get richer at a lesser rate than the poor get rich…

The important thing to note here is people have been propagandized into thinking that capitalist = democratic. In fact the US would gladly punish you with 'un-American activities' investigation if you said anything to the contrary.

The thing is a capitalistic country will gladly turn itself into an authoritarian one if both wealth becomes concentrated and wealth buys votes. With the massive rise in authoritarian activities all over the world, especially in the US our democratic system is at very high risk of collapsing.

Post reply on HN