The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#231

Post by th43o2i4234234 » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:35 AM UTC

esafak wrote: post #228

th43o2i4234234 wrote: post #227

The critical point of the article holds true of everything in human social networks (be it religion/culture/philosophy/apps/industry...). If you don't achieve virality, you're as good as dead. Once a episteme/meme spreads like wild-fire there's very little chance for a reassessment based on value/function - because the scope is now the big axis of valuation. It's actually worse because humanity is now a single big bo…

> If you don't achieve virality, you're as good as dead. Are you? Maybe the worse solution peaks faster, but can be supplanted by a better solution in the future, like how Rust is displacing C/C++ in new projects. The better solution may never be popular yet persist.

Rust is nowhere near displacing C++.

There's typically a "exhaustion" phase with mono-memetism/theories where everyone gets sick and tired of the "one and only way" and it becomes fashionable to try out new things (eg. Xtianity in Europe). We're not at this point where the olds can be toppled.

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#232

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:01 AM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #224

WalterBright wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you might find better prices on individual items if you put a little more work into it That extra work costs you money, too. Calculate how much your job pays you per hour, then you can deduce the $cost of spending more time to get a better deal.

This is a fairly crappy methodology though because the vast majority of people are not substituting paid working time with researching buying things online. So it hasn't "cost" them anything other than their free time which is far more complex than an hourly rate. Maybe they enjoy researching products and in that situation, it wasn't a waste of time at all.

Exactly. I always hate these "your time is worth your hourly wage" arguments. They're often used to argue against things like changing the oil in your car, fixing a clogged drain, or DIYing anything.

Your time is only worth money if you'd otherwise be working at that rate, which is not the case for the vast majority of humans.

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#233

Post by jonmon6691 » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:46 AM UTC

goalieca wrote: post #226

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no. The naming is simple compared to ASN.1/BER parsing.

I’m always confused about when to use DER and when to use BER. Pretty much have to study the history to get it.

I found this article helpful when I had that same question. Basically BER has some less rigid specifications for how to encode the data that can be convenient for the implementation. Such as symbol-terminated sequences instead of having to know their length ahead of time. But this means that there are many equivalent serializations of the same underlying object, which is problematic for cryptography, so DER is an unambiguous subset of BER which will have only one correct possible serialization for a given object.

https://luca.ntop.org/Teaching/Appunti/asn1.html

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#234

Post by aulin » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 4:14 AM UTC

hammock wrote: post #43

There was an article posted on here[1] a while back that I only just found again, introducing the term "expedience." The idea was that we think we live in a world where people have to have "the best" sweater, be on "the best" social network, drive "the best" car, etc. But when you look at what really WINS, it's not the best, it's the most "expedient" - i.e. sufficiently good, with built-in social proof, inoculated of…

> inoculated of buyer's remorse

Non native here. What's the meaning of inoculated here?

It's not the first time that I struggle to parse this word. In italian it keeps the original latin meaning and can be translated with "injected with". You could inoculate a vaccine but you could also inoculate a poison, so it does not carry the immunity meaning by default. English (US?) as far as I can tell use it as a synonym of "immune", is that so?

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#235

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 4:19 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #232

Gigachad wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fairly crappy methodology though because the vast majority of people are not substituting paid working time with researching buying things online. So it hasn't "cost" them anything other than their free time which is far more complex than an hourly rate. Maybe they enjoy researching products and in that situation, it wasn't a waste of time at all.

Exactly. I always hate these "your time is worth your hourly wage" arguments. They're often used to argue against things like changing the oil in your car, fixing a clogged drain, or DIYing anything. Your time is only worth money if you'd otherwise be working at that rate, which is not the case for the vast majority of humans.

Saving money is the same thing as earning it. Are you better off spending an hour to save $100 or an hour to save $10?

I once spent 2 hours negotiating the purchase of a car. It saved $5000. That works out to $2500 an hour. Was it worth it? Hell ya!

I've also worked hourly jobs in the past. There were often opportunities to work more hours or overtime. People often have side hustles, too.

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#236

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 4:22 AM UTC

esafak wrote: post #228

th43o2i4234234 wrote: post #227

The critical point of the article holds true of everything in human social networks (be it religion/culture/philosophy/apps/industry...). If you don't achieve virality, you're as good as dead. Once a episteme/meme spreads like wild-fire there's very little chance for a reassessment based on value/function - because the scope is now the big axis of valuation. It's actually worse because humanity is now a single big bo…

> If you don't achieve virality, you're as good as dead. Are you? Maybe the worse solution peaks faster, but can be supplanted by a better solution in the future, like how Rust is displacing C/C++ in new projects. The better solution may never be popular yet persist.

[deleted]

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#237

Post by downWidOutaFite » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 4:31 AM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #177

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why are you fantasizing? none of that is going exist (caveat: unless we figure out infinite clean energy).

It’s not fantasy. I’m working on a startup to enable this technology. It’s a hard problem, but not impossible. And the energy needs are not as great as you think. A relatively small patch of the Sahara or Gobi desert or open ocean would be sufficient.

You might need to panel over the whole Sahara: https://www.wired.com/story/the-stupendous-energy-cost-of-di...

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#238

Post by groestl » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 4:37 AM UTC

samplatt wrote: post #230

ambicapter wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's misleading here? He was using that as an example of usage of the word 'expedient', not actually suggesting climate change solutions.

A lot of people in this thread seem to think OP was suggesting that geoengineering is a possible way forward right now, when they were just positing it as an example.

Since OP provided a different example, an expedient solution would be to edit OPs post and remove that paragraph about geoengineering, and delete all comments referring to it.

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#239

Post by Log_out_ » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 4:44 AM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #177

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why are you fantasizing? none of that is going exist (caveat: unless we figure out infinite clean energy).

It’s not fantasy. I’m working on a startup to enable this technology. It’s a hard problem, but not impossible. And the energy needs are not as great as you think. A relatively small patch of the Sahara or Gobi desert or open ocean would be sufficient.

its indistinguishable from fantasy extrapolating from the given track record . Previous fantasy technology break through like harbor bosch were viable only "after" major diaasters and worldwars and brought with them ever more destructive hidden costs.

Re: The Rise of Worse Is Better (1991)

#240

Post by thfuran » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 5:06 AM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #215

thfuran wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of flow rate would be necessary to pull CO2 out of the ocean faster than it dissolves from the air, and is that achievable without affecting the surroundings?

CO2 wouldn’t be pulled out of the ocean. You’d have to liquify it from air in a different process. The molecular pumps are used to extract dissolved ions or solutes from sea water and only act as fast as diffusion.

So this is desalination? That seems unrelated.