2048, success and me • Hacker News Board

Re: 2048, success and me

#231

Post by visakanv » Sat, May 10, 2014, 4:24 PM UTC

adwn wrote: post #197

visakanv wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll never know. There could be some little girl who played it, loved it, picked it apart and ended up getting into programming herself, and she might be the cofounder of something that improves the lives of billions. You'll never know.

In that scenario, the little girl changed the world, not 2048.

I didn't downvote you, but I think that's an exceedingly narrow view of causality. We've all been inspired by books, films, games, teachers, etc. If we go on to do great things, we owe a debt to everything that got us to where we go.

Re: 2048, success and me

#232

Post by adwn » Sun, May 11, 2014, 7:23 AM UTC

visakanv wrote: post #231

adwn wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that scenario, the little girl changed the world, not 2048.

I didn't downvote you, but I think that's an exceedingly narrow view of causality. We've all been inspired by books, films, games, teachers, etc. If we go on to do great things, we owe a debt to everything that got us to where we go.

> If we go on to do great things, we owe a debt to everything that got us to where we go.

I agree, but the claim was essentially that "x changes y" is a transitive relation (I tried to express this notion in a less mathematical way, but it was the best I could come up with), which is an exceedingly broad view of causality.

If "changing the world" was as simple as spending a couple of days hacking up a simplistic browser game, a lot more people would do it. Similarly, if the criteria for "changed the world" were so low, the term would essentially be meaningless.

Re: 2048, success and me

#233

Post by visakanv » Mon, May 12, 2014, 10:56 AM UTC

adwn wrote: post #232

visakanv wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote you, but I think that's an exceedingly narrow view of causality. We've all been inspired by books, films, games, teachers, etc. If we go on to do great things, we owe a debt to everything that got us to where we go.

> If we go on to do great things, we owe a debt to everything that got us to where we go. I agree, but the claim was essentially that "x changes y" is a transitive relation (I tried to express this notion in a less mathematical way, but it was the best I could come up with), which is an exceedingly broad view of causality. If "changing the world" was as simple as spending a couple of days hacking up a simplistic brow…

I'm definitely using a broad view of causality, yes. Whether that's excessive or not I think depends on what you're trying to achieve. I think of it from the perspective of- would I like to encourage or discourage whatever is happening?

> If "changing the world" was as simple as spending a couple of days hacking up a simplistic browser game, a lot more people would do it.

That sorta implies (to me) that a lot of people are doing things that genuinely change the world, in the high-criteria sense. Is that really true, though? I think the world would definitely be a richer place if we had a lot more "simplistic browser games"- elegant, engaging, entertaining. I can't say in advance what that would lead to, but I'm sure a world with 100 different versions of 2048 (and I don't mean direct copies, but different games altogether that were addictive, compelling and fun in different ways) would be a relatively more interesting world.

And it'll only take a couple of days per person, no? So why isn't this already the case? Why aren't we awash in this stuff? Is it because most people are busy working on more meaningful things? (Objectively I think we can say things like ending malaria, improving education, project: water, etc are all 'more meaningful' in an anthropocentric sense... but is that what most people are working on?)

sorry for wordiness