Live data from Hacker News

You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

churchlifejournal.nd.edu

201–210 of 243 posts

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither does it make sense to call people who work for you to provide for their families slaves.

Then perhaps you should have made that comment rather than a nonsensical one about machines?

Why? If you are making money when you sleep the chances that you are using machines to make money is quite large. I am doing that and I don't have any slaves working for me.

If you can't see the slave analogy being what is nonsensical here then nothing I can say or do is going to convince you. So I guess by your definition you are either a slave or a slave owner. Oh well.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels a bit like it came from a markov postmodernism generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ Postmodernist arguments and critiques are like the blue/gold dress. Some people see it as pure obscurantism, just all white noise. Other people see it as full of interesting ideas. I've never seen these two groups successfully hold a conversation about it without getting progressively angrier at each other, mostly devolving…

its hilarious that comments to this effect have been posted multiple times, when the actual content of the article specifically quotes/supports ideas by people like Terry Eagleton, a marxist (/religious) thinker who specifically oppose postmodernism

Sure, yeah. I actually studied in an advanced humanities program and have read most of the people he references. I worried a bit about the characterization. But since the labeling didn't really matter for my point I didn't sweat it too much.

I was really into stuff like this for a few years. After a while, this argumentative style just stopped landing for me.

To each his own though. I go back to the blue/gold dress. I can't explain my issues with it without just making people angry, advocates can't explain why it resonates without frustrating the other side.

So... I just want to say sorry if you thought the link was some kind of offensive misdirected attack on something you like.

If you like this stuff, go for it, knock yourself out.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In every HN comment section, there's always, 100% of the time, at least one person who only reads the title of the piece (in this case, a song lyric from The Verve) and still has the nerve to post a comment.

There must be a dozen or two "100% of the time" comments. Collect them all and make a mock/parody HN thread.

* Cryptocurrency

* Fiat currency

* Economics is not a real science

* I understand what the author is trying to say, but I don't like how he says it

* I didn't read the piece, but website that published it is problematic

* The title is clickbait, and I'm unaware of the concept of newspaper headlines

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#204
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They could have chosen simpler individual words And they should have. I can put together a sentence using a lot of words most people won't know. It will be a valid sentence, and it will mean what I want it to mean, but a lot of people won't be able to understand what I intended it to mean.

It's so easy to look words up in a dictionary these days, but for some reason the tech community likes to take a perverse pride in reading at an 8th grade level. "How dare you use a word that happens not to be in my limited vocabulary?"

I think it is more that they are perfectly fine with advanced vocabularies and complexity but only when it actually serves a purpose. It is fine to go into dizzying and pedantic levels of nuance or loosely related trivia.

It could be surmised as a 'earn your complexity' ethos.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#205
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think instead of the Feynmann Lectures. Part of his genius was being able to boil advanced stuff down to a freshman level. When he couldn't, he said "That means we don't really understand it." The humanities should aspire to that, rather than (or at least in addition to) "big words for big ideas".

Yes, Feynman was the first person in any discipline to give lectures accessible to a popular audience. Goodness knows why no-one in the whole of the humanities has ever done this. (There is actually a much longer, and arguably more successful, tradition of humanists engaging with popular audiences. We remember the scientists who were good at it because they were so exceptional.) I suspect you haven't read the article…

Feel free to try to un-press your condescension button; it's not helping you present your case at all. You just come across as rude and hostile.

Let me try to restate a bit better. Feynmann wasn't the first, even in physics (Faraday may have been). But for Feynmann to do what he did in his lectures, he had to find a simpler way to present it - not because the words were hard, but because the mathematics was.

What I want from the humanities is a bit different. Not easier words, but fewer. There's an article about a fifth the length of this one waiting to be written. It would have the same content, too, and would be far more readable (and read!) by non-humanities types. I suspect that even many freshman humanities students would appreciate the difference. (If you're a humanities major, you don't lack for pages to read.)

Now, if you want to say that this wasn't written for the HN crowd, that's probably true. But it got posted here, and here we are.

I assert that there is a possible way of writing that 1) is acceptable within the humanities, 2) does not "dumb down" the content trying to be communicated, and 3) is much more accessible to the non-humanities reader. But I'm not a humanities person myself, so I could be dreaming. 1) might be fundamentally opposed to 3).

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#206
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think instead of the Feynmann Lectures. Part of his genius was being able to boil advanced stuff down to a freshman level. When he couldn't, he said "That means we don't really understand it." The humanities should aspire to that, rather than (or at least in addition to) "big words for big ideas".

Yes, Feynman was the first person in any discipline to give lectures accessible to a popular audience. Goodness knows why no-one in the whole of the humanities has ever done this. (There is actually a much longer, and arguably more successful, tradition of humanists engaging with popular audiences. We remember the scientists who were good at it because they were so exceptional.) I suspect you haven't read the article…

The need to dress up any idea in colourful vocabulary serves only to distract from the lack of substance and to impress other BS vendors.

The linked diatribe could be distilled to a 100 word paragraph and nothing would be lost.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#207
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is inherently aristocratic. Sortition gets you democracy. At least according to some Greeks and Frenchmen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Democratic ): > The idea that democracy is associated with sortition remained common in the 18th century. Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu writes in The Spirit of the Laws, "The suffrage by lot is natural to democracy, as that by choice is to aristocracy."

Greek sortition used the aristocracy as its population for selecting leaders.

Sure. They didn't practice what their preaching sounds like to use.

Sortition is still an interesting idea. Especially for filling up larger decision making groups like a parliament. So that the law of large numbers can work.

It wouldn't be that useful for selecting a single post like president.

As a slight modification of straight up sortition, I would suggest that instead of picking the members of parliament directly, we still have everyone vote for their preferred candidate, and use sortition to pick out as many votes as we have seats to fill. (With some sensible mechanism for when the same candidate comes up more than once in the votes.)

That procedure would sidestep many of the problems that come up thanks to Arrow's Theorem in more conventional procedures or citizen's commissions etc.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#208
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tends to work well, outside black swan events.

Yes, if black swan events happen every 10 or so years, and the black swan events wipe away all the gains of before... is that really helpful advice?

The S&P 500 has been a solid investment, historically speaking, even with the black swan events. It has more than tripled since 2009, and doubled since 2007 (before the 2008 drop). And with dividends it's even better.

This idea that black swan events keep knocking out all the gains just isn't true, looking at the numbers. But if you don't like stocks, buying real estate and renting it out is also a good option.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#209
post #166

Having learned for myself that life has a purpose and there is life after death, with a just judge (and merciful, for the merciful), and that all things will be put in good order (my wording, emphasis on good): that all changes everything, for me at least. Today is Easter, when we commemorate the empty tomb....

There is life after death. It's just not going to be you living it. One day, you'll die. After that, it's eternal nothingness. It's not so terrible if you think about it.

Re: You're a Slave to Money, Then You Die

#210

"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, get smallpox, let doctor do bloodletting, watch everyone around you die After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, get smallpox vaccine, live to play with your kids and watch them grow up...

Actually contrary to popular belief medieval peasants had plenty of free time, and holiday occasions: https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/american-worker-less-vacat...
Post reply on HN