Live data from Hacker News

Notes from an Emergency [video]

youtube.com

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Notes from an Emergency [video]

#41

Typical 'idlewords :). Lots of good points intermingled with unwarranted jabs at Elon Musk, X-risk and anti-aging efforts. I suppose the latter are just signalling, but they do detract from the point he's making. The points about tech running amok with the surveillance capitalism are spot on. I do have some doubts about other parts though; here are they in somewhat random order: -- Problem solving. I'm not buying thi…

"Lots of good points intermingled with unwarranted jabs at Elon Musk, X-risk and anti-aging efforts. I suppose the latter are just signalling, but they do detract from the point he's making." They actually don't. These people are throwing billions of dollars at the wrong problems. There are problems solvable with a fraction of that affecting Americans across the board. If they want people to live longer, patent refor…

> These people are throwing billions of dollars at the wrong problems.

That's your (and idlewords's) opinion, but other people may disagree. In particular, I don't understand the desire to pick on Elon's work on the Mars program, when it pushes forward an industry with huge knock-on effects that are very beneficial to society[0], while he's also one of the few people doing high-impact work in fighting climate change. Tell me that's a "wrong" problem to solve.

You mention a bunch of other problems, but the thing is, most of them are problems that should be solved by our democratic governments. Who is a SV billionaire to tell us how copyright law should work? Not to mention, some of those problems are such that those billionaires could put all their wealth into solving them and in the end have little to show for it. Take gerrymandering - this is not something you can solve by just throwing money at it; the money will get stolen by the same people who perpetuate the problem.

Also, if you want billionaires to work on problems you deem to be "right", you should encourage them instead of mocking each one that choses to do some good instead of buying a new yacht. Or, if you prefer a less consequentialist approach, let's focus on insulting all the other rich people, both within and outside of tech industry, who don't help solve social problems.

> They might even build a new Tier 1 or Tier 3 ISP as a public benefit company w/ privacy and net neutrality in its charter plus a range of services from gigabit for businesses to wireless mesh for poor areas built on consumer routers.

SpaceX is actually on its way to do that with their LEO Internet satellites program.

--

When I talk about "unwarranted jabs", I mean things like the whole "Irreality" chapter of the talk, which is one long mix of ad-hominems and mocking people that disagree with him. So Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are suddenly trying to cause "the collapse of representative government". OpenAI is a cult now[1]. And anti-aging is obviously meant to ensure "that our big idea men don’t expire before the world has been received the full measure of their genius".

This is stuff that I'd expect to hear from John Oliver, who's running a comedy show. Not from someone who attempts to discuss serious issues.

--

[0] - For starters, I'll refer you to WTFNasa, existence of GPS and the impact satellites have on global agriculture, healthcare, logistics and disease management.

[1] - his reasoning is explaioned more by his previous talk of AI; I'll leave discussing that particular talk to Scott Alexander - http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/01/g-k-chesterton-on-ai-ri....

Re: Notes from an Emergency [video]

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lots of good points intermingled with unwarranted jabs at Elon Musk, X-risk and anti-aging efforts. I suppose the latter are just signalling, but they do detract from the point he's making." They actually don't. These people are throwing billions of dollars at the wrong problems. There are problems solvable with a fraction of that affecting Americans across the board. If they want people to live longer, patent refor…

> These people are throwing billions of dollars at the wrong problems. That's your (and idlewords's) opinion, but other people may disagree. In particular, I don't understand the desire to pick on Elon's work on the Mars program, when it pushes forward an industry with huge knock-on effects that are very beneficial to society[0], while he's also one of the few people doing high-impact work in fighting climate change.…

"In particular, I don't understand the desire to pick on Elon's work on the Mars program, when it pushes forward an industry with huge knock-on effects that are very beneficial to society[0]"

So does fixing housing, media, universities, medical, copyright/patent law, and so on. They'll have immediate benefit to all kinds of people on a massive level. If anything, those ripple effects will likely be superior to a Mars project even creating more Elon Musks as opportunities and capabilities increase with critical costs decreasing.

Meanwhile, as technocrati screw around like they are, the real elites that own this country continue doing the reverse of what I suggest controlling more and more doing more and more damage to the benefit of the tiniest few. Those elites are focusing on all the critical areas with wide impact. Just with perverse incentives that lead to harm. The Elon Musks should do the same with more benevolent stance to act as a balance against them plus create opportunities instead of remove them. So, far the only large, tech companies lobbying Washington and working at those levels are the most harmful or selfish ones. The rest are just rich people parasiting on a system actual elites control. Too bad as the people need benevolent elites these days.

Re: Notes from an Emergency [video]

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely lost me by calling a sizable majority of voters anti-democratic sore losers.

I didn't call them that - you did, by asserting that the sore losers I identified actually form the majority of the voting population. EDIT: Also, "you lost me" kool kid dismissal is supposed to be used with things mentioned early in the piece of writing, not with literally the last two sentences of the post. You admitted that you read everything, so no points for style :P.

You very much did. Go reread your comment.

You lost me is me telling you that I was entertaining your argument up to the point where you called the majority who voted for someone else sore losers.

The 'kool kid' slur seems pretty unnecessary. What value does that add to your argument?

Re: Notes from an Emergency [video]

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't call them that - you did, by asserting that the sore losers I identified actually form the majority of the voting population. EDIT: Also, "you lost me" kool kid dismissal is supposed to be used with things mentioned early in the piece of writing, not with literally the last two sentences of the post. You admitted that you read everything, so no points for style :P.

You very much did. Go reread your comment. You lost me is me telling you that I was entertaining your argument up to the point where you called the majority who voted for someone else sore losers. The 'kool kid' slur seems pretty unnecessary. What value does that add to your argument?

Let me quote directly from my comment:

"I'm starting to get a feeling that some people on anti-Trump side are just sore losers, and can't accept that he won democratic elections; no, it must be some conspiracy."

Note the key word "some" here. I didn't call the majority of voters (or even of those not voting for Trump) "sore losers". Most people who didn't want Trump to win are sad about the outcome - that's normal. But there's a huge difference between being sad your side lost, and going around talking all the time about how the other side could not possibly have won (and it must be some kind of evil conspiracy).

The "wrong" side won, but the real question isn't how, it's why. As for answering it, 'idlewords says it's a "bug in the operating system of our democracy, one of the many ways that slavery still casts its shadow over American politics". Personally, I disagree. I think this is democracy working as designed, and the whole situation should be a sad lesson about a) what you get when lots of people feel they are treated unfairly, and b) that general population is kind of dumb in aggregate, and nationalism is unfortunately the default state (in-group/out-group).

That, and c) what you get when you let media spin the "Muslim == terrorism" narrative ad nauseam for close to two decades now.

Re: Notes from an Emergency [video]

#45
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously there is good and bad regulation. I go into specifics about what I want in the text version of this talk, and here: http://idlewords.com/six_fixes.htm

Regarding the "right to go offline", I see an increasing trend of non-networking software that inexplicably "requires" the user to have an internet connection. This trend may have the effect of coercing users to stay connected. (Even if the "requirement" is not truly a requirement but merely a suggestion or recommendation disguised as a directive.) As such, users with the "right to go offline" may not do so because a…

The reasons are not legitimate, as evidenced by the very fact such software worked just fine "before internet connections were inexpensive".

The reason behind software forcing you to be on-line are quite simple: greater control and money-making potential.

- SaaS model makes a shit ton of money on the Internet; it makes deployment orders of magnitude cheaper (especially as it's cross-platform deployment), but it opens the possibility of (as the name suggests) turning what should be a product into a service - so now you get billed continuously for what you'd rather buy once, and this is ultimately possible because you can't pirate other people's servers.

- Entrepreneurs, seeing success of SaaS model, are trying to shove it everywhere. On the one hand, a lot of software that should stay native is moving into the web. On the other hand, there is this idiotic push of turning hardware into SaaS by connecting it to the cloud.

- If you're not aiming at renting your software away for money, there's at least possibility of money-making by selling data it collects.

And while I think a lot of permanently-connected software is simply designed with malicious intent, there's also developer laziness. Too lazy to learn anything but JavaScript? Let's make an Electron app. Too lazy to learn how to build native software? Let's host everything on our side and make an "embedded browser" mobile app. Too lazy to actually go out and ask users what are their problems? Let's hide "analytics" in the app[0]. And the "dev laziness" argument also explains why our applications still do mostly the same things they did 10 years ago, but max-out our current CPUs.

This all should be opposed, but I don't see it happening - the commercial and laziness incentives are all turning everything into cloud-first SaaS solutions.

--

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11566720

Re: Notes from an Emergency [video]

#46
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously there is good and bad regulation. I go into specifics about what I want in the text version of this talk, and here: http://idlewords.com/six_fixes.htm

But how often are snarky but otherwise mild-mannered technocrats like yourself able to set the agenda for internet regulation, as opposed to actual demagogues like (in varying degrees) Macron, May, Erdogan, and Putin? Your "regulate, regulate, regulate" chant about the evil influences of the American internet will in practice drive more censorship then privacy protection – even when, as with the Tories' new internet-…

Despots gonna despot regardless of what idlewords (or anyone else) does
Post reply on HN