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

A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 452 posts

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#401

Post by tomatotomato37 »

fabianhjr wrote: post #206
simonh wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn't defending destroying the frames though, he was commiserating with the plight of the workers. In modern developed countries we have social security benefits, health care and such, to varying degrees depending on the country, to try and make sure people don't starve like that.

> He wasn't defending destroying the frames though Agreed > In modern developed countries we have social security benefits, health care and such, to varying degrees depending on the country, to try and make sure people don't starve like that. And the country with the highest GDP lacks anything other than the bare minimum social security and the article is very-USA centric. (Both China and Europe have a more stable so…

Belarus has a more stable society than the US?

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#402

Post by simonh »

XorNot wrote: post #264
swarnie_ wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With weapons distributed amongst all USSR holdings this implies the US was willing to nuke everything from Poland to north Vietnam.

The US in fact did have a serious problem with nuclear warplan targeting during the Cold War - there was essentially never a reason you could give to take a target off the list, so the plan for a good deal of time was essentially something like "hit every single conceivable target several times" (to account for failed bombs or losses en route). It was actually one of Dick Cheney's initiatives to create a process whic…

There is even a case to be made that too much nuclear disarmament could create a less stable situation, because arsenals might deplete enough that an exchange might seem survivable.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#403

Post by thebean11 »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #299
sillysaurusx wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. Are you sure? I don’t know. It helped me to view it as “yes, this is selfish. They’re more important to me than the topic.” The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Another way to phrase it: why c…

What is your definition of selfishness then? Looking at the things you wrote: > They’re more important to me than the topic. Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? > The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Perhaps. But the interpret…

> Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person?

You care about the topic, they don't want to talk about it for whatever reason. You are trying to get them to do something they don't like, because _you_ like it.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#404

Post by glenstein »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #392
glenstein wrote: post #37

A comment I made on this when it was posted a few days ago: I am surprised that this was regarded as a close decision. I guess a lot depends on wording, but when one person is predicting the dollar will be worthless, and the person in the role of judge claims that given global economic uncertainty, it's a "close" question, I wonder if they're just saying that to be diplomatic. Obviously there's a lot of uncertainty,…

Yeah, the bet and judgment are both unreasonably favorable to Sale, to an absurd degree. He predicted society's "collapse", that by now we'd be living in small bands. Global warming steadily making the worse a crappier place is an awful thing, to be sure, but we're nowhere near collapse, at least not at the moment. The first part of the bet is a good one: the dollar -- the world's reserve currency -- becoming worthle…

>He predicted society's "collapse", that by now we'd be living in small bands. Global warming steadily making the worse a crappier place is an awful thing, to be sure, but we're nowhere near collapse, at least not at the moment.

Yeah, this is exactly the thing I'm stuck on when I go over these responses. I feel like people really aren't grasping the difference in scale between (a) 2008 financial crisis was pretty bad and (b) dollar becoming "worthless".

People are talking as if those two things are close, or taking up the tone of cautionary finger wagging and saying "well, you know he wasn't too far off" and going off to say this or that about a given poverty statistic.

My best theory as to what's going on here is that people are just cannibalizing the question and using it as a digression into various world problems in ways that don't clearly connect back to the wording of the question.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#405

Post by zelphirkalt »

thebean11 wrote: post #403
zelphirkalt wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your definition of selfishness then? Looking at the things you wrote: > They’re more important to me than the topic. Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? > The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Perhaps. But the interpret…

> Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? You care about the topic, they don't want to talk about it for whatever reason. You are trying to get them to do something they don't like, because _you_ like it.

But that is an assumption right there. Perhaps it is simply an important topic in the context of the moment. It doesn't have to mean one personally likes the topic. There can be a necessity, that one has to discuss this topic.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#406

Post by A12-B »

rendall wrote: post #350
A12-B wrote: post #323

"Like the raging denialist in the White House, the cantankerous anarchocommunalist has quit the game after the final score left him short." This is such a bitter note. I would have paid the 1000, but Kelly was very predatory. He set up a gotcha interview and then a surprise bet on some pretty wild claims from both sides. In any case, the world has clearly gotten worse and more unpredictable, so the spirit of the bet…

> the world has clearly gotten worse and more unpredictable By what measure? Crime? Child mortality? Global poverty? Death by warfare?

By Sale's measures, and since the time of Sale's prediction. I don't care for comparing this year to the past 400 years on issues like poverty, etc, people only do that because it makes them feel better so they can continue on ignoring problems. Equality and environment are clearly on a downward trajectory.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#407

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #65
8ytecoder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orthagonal and nitpick. I couldn't parse the "e.g., Dark Ages" part until I realised what you may have meant is "i.e., Dark Ages". I read "e.g.," as "for example" and "i.e.," as "that is". (English is not my first language)

> I read "e.g.," as "for example" and "i.e.," as "that is". That's what each means, correct. > (English is not my first language) That's okay, it's not the first language of id est and exempli gratia , either.

It's no more correct, but I like "example given" and "in essence", for the mnemonic value.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#408

Post by rendall »

A12-B wrote: post #406
rendall wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the world has clearly gotten worse and more unpredictable By what measure? Crime? Child mortality? Global poverty? Death by warfare?

By Sale's measures, and since the time of Sale's prediction. I don't care for comparing this year to the past 400 years on issues like poverty, etc, people only do that because it makes them feel better so they can continue on ignoring problems. Equality and environment are clearly on a downward trajectory.

> I don't care for comparing this year to the past 400 years on issues like poverty, etc

Since 1995, crime, child mortality, global poverty and death by warfare are all dramatically down.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#409

Post by thebean11 »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #405
thebean11 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? You care about the topic, they don't want to talk about it for whatever reason. You are trying to get them to do something they don't like, because _you_ like it.

But that is an assumption right there. Perhaps it is simply an important topic in the context of the moment. It doesn't have to mean one personally likes the topic. There can be a necessity, that one has to discuss this topic.

This is a hypothetical, importance or non-importance is an assumption either way. I didn't realize importance was assumed here.

Re: A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

#410

Post by dash2 »

stavros_ wrote: post #188
jb_gericke wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the global poverty line has been on a steady decline over the last three decades ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty ). We have made untold advances in the medical sciences (hello MRNA vaccines), we are rapidly divorcing ourselves from our reliance on fossil fuels, and we are living in a time when there is an unprecedented level of awareness for basal human rights (well, primarily in the West a…

Back breaking labour, very long working hours, poor health care and for the most part, endentured servitude to those who own the land/mills/factories you toil away in? All of these things are more true now than they were in the average subsistence based society. Amazon warehouse workers have a worse deal than serfs, and a much much worse deal than hunter gatherers. Oh and this we are rapidly divorcing ourselves from…

“Amazon warehouse workers have a worse deal than serfs“

Could you back this claim up? I don’t find it at all plausible.

Post reply on HN