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

Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 330 posts

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#221

Post by michaelsbradley »

hackyhacky wrote: post #214
erelong wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the issue: the documents are deliberately vague, so for many years it's been said they can be read "through the light of Tradition" to mean things like you say which sound "traditional". However, the documents themselves do not speak clearly in a traditional way, but must be evaluated as "objectively ambiguous". Consider some teaching could be of three options: clearly Catholic, ambiguous, or clearly non-Catho…

If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation. That's what it means to be Catholic. The Pope is God's representative on Earth. To defy him is to defy God. The alternative would be to declare him a False Pope and to select an alternative divine representative. Of course, that would make you a heretic. If you ditch the pope as soon as he says something you d…

> If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation…

cf. Hyperpapalism

Thankfully, Hyperpapalism is a misunderstanding of the role of the teaching-governing authority of the Bishop of Rome, and Catholics can be and remain good Catholics while disagreeing with the Pope on a variety of matters.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#222

Post by hackyhacky »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #221
hackyhacky wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation. That's what it means to be Catholic. The Pope is God's representative on Earth. To defy him is to defy God. The alternative would be to declare him a False Pope and to select an alternative divine representative. Of course, that would make you a heretic. If you ditch the pope as soon as he says something you d…

> If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation… cf. Hyperpapalism Thankfully, Hyperpapalism is a misunderstanding of the role of the teaching-governing authority of the Bishop of Rome, and Catholics can be and remain good Catholics while disagreeing with the Pope on a variety of matters.

I never said that you can't disagree with him. I said you can't defy him.

You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to apply your interpretation of doctrine in place of the Holy See's. That's heresy.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#223

Post by michaelsbradley »

hackyhacky wrote: post #222
michaelsbradley wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're a Catholic, then the choice of interpretation is clear: you must accept the Pope's interpretation… cf. Hyperpapalism Thankfully, Hyperpapalism is a misunderstanding of the role of the teaching-governing authority of the Bishop of Rome, and Catholics can be and remain good Catholics while disagreeing with the Pope on a variety of matters.

I never said that you can't disagree with him. I said you can't defy him. You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to apply your interpretation of doctrine in place of the Holy See's. That's heresy.

Pope John XXII publicly taught erroneously re: death and the Beatific Vision. Jean Gerson threatened to burn him at the stake and in general there was much public resistance, from royalty to common folk.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#224

Post by mekael »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #186
KPGv2 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"B-but my philosophical argument was aesthetically pleasing," he shouted over the sound of eight billion people starving to death. Setting aside your implicit assumption that what nigh-unregulated AI is set to do to humanity is "progress," having a sound argument is pretty pointless if it leads to tremendous human suffering. Reminds me of the paradox of intolerance, where bad faith actors say "it's intolerant to be i…

How dramatic! No one is starving to death. Things will just be rough for a bit. People will get over it, as they always have, and the QoL gains will have been worth the cost many times over, just like they were for literally every Industrial Revolution before us.

Ummm. Plenty of people starved to death as a result of the industrial revolution.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#225

Post by hackyhacky »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #223
hackyhacky wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said that you can't disagree with him. I said you can't defy him. You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to apply your interpretation of doctrine in place of the Holy See's. That's heresy.

Pope John XXII publicly taught erroneously re: death and the Beatific Vision. Jean Gerson threatened to burn him at the stake and in general there was much public resistance, from royalty to common folk.

"Erroneous" is an opinion. Papal doctrine is the word of God until a subsequent pope says otherwise. Jean Gerson is entitled to his opinion, even if speaking that opinion made him a heretic.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#226

Post by solenoid0937 »

basisword wrote: post #194
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But the fact that they're still in business shows that different people value different things. Be it rating schemes, payment alternatives, choosing their music, choosing their cars, one click hailing and so on. The people have spoken, the social contract has changed.

>> But the fact that they're still in business shows that different people value different things. No it doesn't. It shows they could undercut the market, monopolise it, and then charge more once they'd killed the competition.

Except NYC taxis and the taxi cartel is still trash compared to Ubers, despite Uber being out of its subsidization era.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#228

Post by solenoid0937 »

kergonath wrote: post #145
arjie wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amusing. By yoking taxicab drivers to the other two, the argument attempts to make them seem like victims. However, most people’s direct experience with taxicab drivers and the resulting improvement under Uber directly contradicts that sentiment. This probably has the opposite effect and makes it seem like the AI companies aren’t so bad if they’re akin to the guys who freed us from cabs.

> However, most people’s direct experience with taxicab drivers and the resulting improvement under Uber directly contradicts that sentiment You can be both a victim and a bully, it's not mutually exclusive. A scam artist can get mugged or burglarised, and so on. In general, in civilised countries, being a horrible person does not prevent someone from being recognised as a victim.

You're not a victim if you chose a bad business model that someone else disrupted.

Re: Leo's first encyclical attacks technological messianism

#230

Post by saimiam »

hunterpayne wrote: post #218
addaon wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of the medallion system was to artificially limit supply — not with the purpose of driving up cost (although, yes, that was a secondary effect), but with the purpose of making the city more pleasant. There’s a trade off in the number of taxis — if you want a taxi, more is better; if you want to walk, drive, take a bus, bike, or basically do anything but take a taxi… fewer is better. This was a conscio…

That a driver (who already owned a car) had to pay 2x the price of an average house (which is already overpriced) to do the job isn't a secondary effect. Its a primary effect and drives up price and down the driver's pay. That that happened is a 10000ft giant red sign pointing out that it didn't work. That you can't understand that means that you fundamentally don't understand good public policy in any way. Anytime a…

What would this new system look like that doesn’t involve the trade offs between having cabs on demand if you need them and having a walkable city if you don’t that the person you replied to spoke about?

Uber and friends have indeed democratised giving rides to people - though where I am, a few rich people have bought numerous cars and have daily wagers driving them finding fares via Uber - but at the cost of far more cabs on the road.

Others, notably motorbikes and scooter ride aggregators have emerged to replicate Uber. These motorbike cabs are even harder to regulate than cabs.

Uber, imo, has broken the equilibrium that existed before.

Post reply on HN