Live data from Hacker News

Engineered Addictions

masonyarbrough.substack.com

391–400 of 467 posts

Re: Engineered Addictions

#391
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon is the poster child for B2C success, but makes most of its money from AWS (which is B2B). Amazon still makes the most revenue from ecom.

That's what you get when an expert financial trader makes a company. He wanted billions from the start ... so how to do it? There's only one way, really: a pyramid scheme. But an atypical one: get lots of sales, lots of revenue and change any profit into capital. This is quite a common plan in Western Europe, and that's why it doesn't work there. Why would you do that? Well companies are taxed on profit. And the mone…

> If it starts demanding profit it will be eaten alive by competition in no time at all.

At least until it becomes too big to fail and can build anticompetitive "moats" around itself to increase the amount of profit it can take.

For example, in the case of Amazon, they aren't just a retailer, they're a logistics and shipping company, too. And all of those are separate, itemized services that suppliers pay for, which increases revenue in a very opaque and difficult to understand way. On the customer's end that means higher prices and worse selection.

Any competitor to Amazon doesn't just have to get the same products for cheaper, they also have to build their own shipping company that can get products to people with That being said, when you start building a giant business empire the direct profits matter less than the amount of control over the economy you get. In other words, you have the power to tax and subsidy, just like a government does. Amazon maintained minimal profit by deliberately subsidizing new business ventures until they could get big enough to become extractive on their own.

At no point does the business flip a switch and go from "deliberately burning money to avoid carrying a profit" to "extracting so much profit they get eaten by nimbler competition". They instead are always burning money, and always extracting, moving money to where they see fit.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#392

Are we overthinking this? Old school specialty sites are still around, with topics, categories, and discussions around the whole site emphasis. As someone who likes to grow a little food in a semi-rural area, I enjoy permies.com - every day, a volunteer posts a new question or reposts a relevant topic, depending on the season or recent interest or whatever. But they're not trying to make a billion dollars. Or even a…

totally "i want to help people connect!!! but i gave up when i noticed i wasnt gonna get easy money" then you dont wanna help people..

true. Some of the best sites are .com but function like .orgs - I really like the all volunteer efforts but it takes a good leader to keep it running

Money can be like crack and big tech has plenty of addicts

Re: Engineered Addictions

#393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One small question: how did those places manage to change the economic system for the entire population?

Usually extremely violent revolt I don't think the appetite is there in most places

I'm not sure this is true. My analysis shows that 75% of economic transitions are completed without violent revolt.

Just a quick glance at the 44 historic economic transitions in my dataset, most of them aren't well known. The most likely reason why we think economic revolutions are associated with violent revolt is due to selection bias - violent revolts are more memorable, take up a larger section of history books, etc.

Happy to take at look at your dataset and compare notes.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not know many rich people if you think addiction is not an issue for the wealthy. The drugs of choice are less immediately destructive, but cocaine, pills, MDMA and ketamine are all wildly abused by the 1%.

All humans are susceptible to addictions and addictive behavior, but the 1% that you mention are mostly shielded from their negative effects. It's far less of an issue for them, and it's not even just about choosing the less destructive drugs. If we talk about just drug addictions, their wealth ensures that: 1. They always have a reliable supply of their preferred drug. No matter how much they need, many of them will…

That is a fundamentally different argument than the one GP was making.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of addictions where the incentive to stop never appears, and I wouldn't call those "not" addictions just because someone hasn't tried to stop or had a reason to.

Scientifically speaking, I would expect that pattern of habit to be studied, and for individuals to be unable to quit, and for actual electro-chemical rewiring of the brain (as nicotine,caffeine and harder drugs do) to be established. Until then, why can't it just be called a habit? addiction very strongly implies inability to quit. Have you seen the 90's congressional testimony of tobacco CEO's all swearing on oath…

I disagree, consider someone who is rich enough to afford a heroin addiction without ending up dead, in jail or institutionalized. They may never have a rock bottom that makes them question their use and try to stop. Their quality of life might drop, they may lose friends, family, business, etc, but they are insulated from the kinds of real pressures that force people without means to stop.

I would not say that person does not have an addiction. They are just as much of an addict as the person who shoots heroin and can't stop despite being broke, arrested for stealing, etc.

Addiction and mental illness tend to be defined by their impacts on people's quality of life and impact on functioning, whether that is just functioning basically, maintaining long-term healthy relationships or just being happy without substances.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#396
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an old saying: The purpose of a system is what it does[1]. You can't (well, shouldn't) judge something by its intended purpose if what it ends up doing goes against it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

Capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty worldwide by an order of magnitude than any other competing system or ideology. What capitalism does is apparent in its worldwide success.

Amazed that Hacker News has become such a bastion of socialism. The above comment is objective fact.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#398
post #298
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t all this company is the product stuff an obvious side effect of wealth inequality? There is way way more money up top looking for investments than there is in the hands of customers, so it’s far more profitable to chase that money and make the stock the product than it is to care about the actual product much. It’s a special case of the more general big dumb money problem that happens whenever too much money en…

A lot of the time I feel like the software economy is just a bunch of well-moneyed individuals betting on horses.

They are betting on whether richer people will bet on the same things so they can cash out. Repeat, all the way up.

The entire economy is to some degree a casino betting on itself. I think this is always true to an extent but the casino nature becomes much more dominant the more unbalanced things become.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#399

I was talking with a friend who is a camp counselor for a small summer camp the other day and they said that 4 of the 35 or so kids at the camp left because they couldn’t be away from their devices. This power intermittent reinforcement in the on-ramp of addiction is scary powerful. Do we have any ways to innoculate ourselves and the future generations against it? The author poses changing the game which is support.…

> said that 4 of the 35 or so kids at the camp left because they couldn’t be away from their devices. Wow that’s scary. Such powerful addiction at such a young age

Parents let them.

Re: Engineered Addictions

#400
post #320
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you really think about it, this also applies to very many publicly traded companies. Tech especially, always searching to present next growth area. And then often shortly abandoning it or wasting massive resources on it... Really does make me cynical on investing...

We make fun of the state run businesses of old communist regimes, how wasteful they were, how mismanaged they were, how they produced stuff nobody wanted and so on. I'm increasingly getting a similar feeling for VC fueled tech. It's all smoke and mirrors of hype (was blockchain or web3.0 yesterday, AI and quantum today). There is so much wasted money, especially after quantitative easing and negative interest rates o…

The difference is that VC fueled startups is a very small part of the economy while communist regimes are the entire economy.

Imagine if every company was as wasteful as VC fueled startups and life would be hell, imagine going to the new smart grocery store where prices changes by the minute and now you have surge pricing since many wanted to buy toilet paper this minute...

Post reply on HN