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

Google Declaring War on the Web

tante.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–466 of 466 posts

Re: Google Declaring War on the Web

#461

Post by JohnBooty »

hakfoo wrote: post #298
JohnBooty wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dichotomy is so false. However else you feel, AI is a force multiplier, and that can also REALLY benefit "Artisanal work + Small Business" I feel like the "one person app creator" business is so much more viable than it has been since Web 1.0 Five years ago, to run your own solo business in this space, you had to know most of the following: taxes, legal, backend, frontend, devops, iOS dev, Android dev, and marke…

As I understand it, we used to have the concept of "hiring workers" or "contracting for services". The benefit of this was that when Internal Revenue called and said in lieu of a tax return, you sent a takeaway menu covered in pornographic drawings, you could reach out to the person you paid and expect them to take accountability. Instead, we're getting :sparkles: You're absolutely right! I shouldn't have sent the ta…

Those concepts still exist and I'd highly recommend them when possible.

We also had, and still have, concepts called "time" and "money" and perhaps you've heard that they're finite and often in short supply.

Particularly when "bootstrapping," another concept you can consider. This is when you start small and self-fund your own business. Seems pretty relevant because we're talking about small and artisanal businesses.

...

...wait, I get it. This is HN. All you people understand is venture capital funded shit. In that case, yeah. Build your prototype, do whatever you have to do to get $100M funding, hire 50 people, rent some offices, hire those workers and contract those services and burn $20M a month before you make your first sale. OK. Yeah. That's the only way. Don't forget the Aeron chairs and $500 stealth-wealth hoodies or whatever.

Re: Google Declaring War on the Web

#462

Post by Gormo »

eszed wrote: post #444
Gormo wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of people who care about the underlying concerns that "anti-trust / anti-monopoly enforcement" is trying to correct, but recognize that the only mechanism ever proposed for addressing those concerns usually involves concentrating ever more power into the hands of an even larger and less accountable monopoly. The biggest error of the "left" in most of these conversations is treating political institut…

I agree with (very, very, nearly) everything you say - particularly about the naivety of the "left"'s assumptions about political interventions being necessarily well-intentioned and competent. On the other hand, skepticism about political intervention over-corrects when it assumes or insists that government action can never be a net benefit. Even the first Trump administration produced one extraordinary success - "O…

> The only point of difference I would identify is that I think a democratic government is more accountable than the monied interests to which it is a necessary counter-balance

I'm not entirely sure about that. It makes sense in theory, but in practice, we often see vested interests successfully influence democratic processes to achieve ends that would be more difficult to achieve via pure market dynamics.

We've ended up with the worst of both worlds: institutions that derive their legitimacy from perceived democratic accountability, but with the functional mechanisms of that accountability reduced largely to performative rituals; meanwhile, the incentive structures and motivations that drive their day-to-day behavior derive largely from the influence of special interests or ideological factions.

I think public choice theory is largely correct on this, and many of the policies that are intended to pursue the public interest actually end up working against it.

Re: Google Declaring War on the Web

#464

Post by DarkUranium »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #226
analogpixel wrote: post #29

I feel like AI has gotten to the point where the message is: If you want to make something (art/code/music/writing) you can do it for your own enjoyment, but you aren't allowed to make money from it anymore; only the large corporations can make money from content. If you do release something creative, it'll just be fed back into the machine to be copied over and over.

Well people need to wake up and make their own ventures and vote with their wallets.

Voting with one's wallet pretty much never worked (with few exceptions). The conspiracy theorist in me suspects pushing this is astroturfing by the very aristocracy, to shift blame onto people (same with environment and such, but that one's been proven time and time again).

Re: Google Declaring War on the Web

#465

Post by Procrastes »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #368
Procrastes wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to buy you a CMOT Dibbler Sausage for the Vimes reference. Perfect metaphor for this situation. His point was that it was the cheap boots that keep people poor, so that makes me think artist and artisan patronage will be an even bigger thing in years to come.

I’ve become quite doubtful about the Vimes theory because getting boots resoled involves labour so has become relatively expensive. Also my expensive boots didn’t last a lifetime, last time I went to get them resoled I was told they had deteriorated too far.

The metaphor may not hold up well in practice, but as counterexamples, I've had a pair of motorcycle boots since the late 80s that have never needed any maintenance beyond some saddle soap, and my grandfather's fountain pen from the 1920s just turned 100 and still writes fine. I put a new nib in it about 15 years ago or so.

Re: Google Declaring War on the Web

#466

Post by eszed »

Gormo wrote: post #462
eszed wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with (very, very, nearly) everything you say - particularly about the naivety of the "left"'s assumptions about political interventions being necessarily well-intentioned and competent. On the other hand, skepticism about political intervention over-corrects when it assumes or insists that government action can never be a net benefit. Even the first Trump administration produced one extraordinary success - "O…

> The only point of difference I would identify is that I think a democratic government is more accountable than the monied interests to which it is a necessary counter-balance I'm not entirely sure about that. It makes sense in theory, but in practice, we often see vested interests successfully influence democratic processes to achieve ends that would be more difficult to achieve via pure market dynamics. We've ende…

Indeed. That's the failure mode into which several (at least) western democracies seem to be tipping. Russia, among other states, is all the way down that "performative democracy (only)" road.

Democratic accountability is meant to be the alternative to mass violence. The Demos will, in the end, have their say, and it's far better for everyone that it be through the ballot box than otherwise. Elites forget this, over and over throughout history, to their (or their descendants', if they're lucky) cost. That's the lesson I wish was more remembered, because I don't want to have to live (even if I do) through that kind of time.

Post reply on HN