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

Are we the baddies?

geohot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 554 posts

Re: Are we the baddies?

#491

Post by alganet »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #483
alganet wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just being honest, mostly. I'll say things I know will get me downvoted. I'll criticize things that could benefit me if I think they're manipulative. I won't do alt accounts even if everyone does it. I think most surveillance and advertisement relies on social dynamics. I attempt to play the algorithms but not the people. Sometimes it will get misunderstood, and that's fine.

Ah, well I hope that sharing your honest opinion about it turns out to be an effective strategy. But I'm afraid we'll regret not interfering more directly than that.

I think surveillance is very, very advanced. But the active meddling thing is old tricks.

One should consider this combination. You can't lie to some systems, the better strategy is to be honest. You can lie to some systems, but these won't be load bearing, so why do it?

I will also observe back. The active meddling thing, when observed in action, is a source of information. It could be lying to me too, predicting that observability is inevitable and camouflaging it. Of course, I could be predicting that as well (and so on).

Notice how many interesting scenarios exist even if honesty is considered as a viable strategy in a total surveillance hypothetical situation?

Re: Are we the baddies?

#492

Post by lannisterstark »

hn1986 wrote: post #470
hammond wrote: post #395

The author should start with his own product, which stops working if it doesn't connect to the internet at least every 14 days. https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/a8ec08e5bbc2be0a32...

Or the fact that he volunteered to work for Twitter, which is the ultimate propaganda recommendation algorithm since Musk took over. https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/20/23519922/george-hotz-geo...

>Or the fact that he volunteered to work for Twitter

Worse! He volunteered, then went "Hey anyone want an internship? Fix twitter search, Make the code MIT, and then maybe I'll give you an internship."

...had 0 authority to give anyone an internship btw. Dudebro just wanted free fix.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#493

Post by lannisterstark »

dcrazy wrote: post #391
LeafItAlone wrote: post #217

I generally avoid George’s non-technical posts because they are… let’s say uninspired. But here is one that actually makes sense. Of course the self-reflection with who he otherwise praises and spends his time with will never set in, but at least others may take the time to look inward and do something differently. Something has to change. Even HN seems to have had an increase in sentiment like this in the past few y…

I was hopeful that by titling his post “Are we the baddies?” that he would spend at least a little time reflecting on his role in all this. But he didn’t.

>he would spend at least a little time reflecting

It's Hotz. Why would you waste time expecting that.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#494

Post by m463 »

ggm wrote: post #2

For some people, paying the premium to jump the queue is the point. What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again. This is mostly Australian frequent flyers, when it was a high barrier to entry it conferred advantages and now Fly in Fly out work has commoditised club status, there is next to no boarding advantage, and no points flight availa…

> when everyone has wound up paying the premium

just scale premiums in cost and number...

Re: Are we the baddies?

#495

Post by imperfect_blue »

const_cast wrote: post #463
southernplaces7 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You ARE hurting the underpaid, exploited worker. What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You're going out to eat and expecting to pay for what you ordered, not the life subsidy of someone whose employer can't be bothered to pay them well enough. Either way, it's not and shouldn't be your obligation even if it does screw with the waiter's finances. I too might have financial squeezes that make it difficult for me to fo…

> What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You are, and it's objective. Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. What you're arguing is if this harm is justified. Maybe, maybe not. In your opinion, it is. My opinion is that the marginal effects of me not tipping will have zer…

You're hurting yourself when you tip.

You have, objectively, less money than before. Ergo, tipping is self-harm.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#496

Post by southernplaces7 »

const_cast wrote: post #463
southernplaces7 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You ARE hurting the underpaid, exploited worker. What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You're going out to eat and expecting to pay for what you ordered, not the life subsidy of someone whose employer can't be bothered to pay them well enough. Either way, it's not and shouldn't be your obligation even if it does screw with the waiter's finances. I too might have financial squeezes that make it difficult for me to fo…

> What? No, you're not hurting anyone. You are, and it's objective. Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out. What you're arguing is if this harm is justified. Maybe, maybe not. In your opinion, it is. My opinion is that the marginal effects of me not tipping will have zer…

No, you're bloody well not. You as an average external consumer did not create the exploitative culture of low wages for hospitality staff or make any one of them join that culture by seeking employment there. There's nothing objective about what you argue except that it's objectively mistaken in its blame.

Playing by stupid "rules" (which these aren't in any case, they're social tendencies that can be slowly changed) is the passively damaging thing, a logic of, "yeah, this aspect of the world is shit but i'll chide you for not participating in it because I myself am too inert to not do so".

>Does this worker have more, or less, money than before? It's not a matter of opinion. The answer is less, and we know that's the answer because that's specifically what you're seeking out.

Do you own a restaurant in which you underpay employees? I'd almost guess you do to come up with such topsy-turvy nonsense. The worker having less money has nothing to do with any fault of your own. You're paying for what you ordered, and stealing nothing from anyone; you're simply seeking not to be squeezed further for no good reason. The owner of the place is however literally underpaying because they're hoping to guilt you into subsidizing part of wages, and convincing their employees that this is the correct thing.

A person having less money because you refuse to participate in a subtle bit of exploitation doesn't make you guilty of the exploitation or "seeking it out"

Re: Are we the baddies?

#497

Post by bragh »

HeartStrings wrote: post #31
bigyabai wrote: post #4

> It’s not okay. Advertising is not okay. Price discrimination is not okay. Using big data, machine learning, and psychology to manipulate others at scale is not okay. Stop participating. Hinge is towards the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, you'll do just fine without it.

What? Sex is a basic need in Maslow’s hierarchy.

Yes, but nobody ever died because of not having sex.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#498

Post by cedws »

bigyabai wrote: post #378
cedws wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s genius really. They’ve inserted themselves into the social fabric, hijacked it, and then used cartel tactics to take control of competition. And nobody cares enough to start an antitrust suit.

Because 95% of us don't live on a computer, and recognize the potential to meet and court suitors at bars or social events.

The data shows the majority of people now meet on dating apps. So yes, dating apps are in control.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#499

Post by alganet »

Levitating wrote: post #381
alganet wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> disengagement. That disengagement metric is valuable, I'm not gonna give it away for free anymore. I'll engage and disengage randomly, so no one knows what works. > The boom in digital detoxes, the dumbphone revival among young people That's a market now. It doesn't mean shit. It's a "lifestyle". > People are feeling the manipulation They don't. Even manipulation awareness is a market now. I'm sure there are YouTub…

> The boom in digital detoxes, the dumbphone revival among young people >> That's a market now. It doesn't mean shit. It's a "lifestyle". The fact that there's such a market now, means something on it's own I believe. Regardless if it's a "lifestyle", it's a lifestyle people are choosing now. I know more and more people who either don't own a smartphone or have it on DnD at all times. It's the same for "manipulation…

> there are people consciously disengaging from social media

There are people _voluntarily_ disengaging. It is different.

We're talking about manipulation, you have to consider the possibility of unconscious decisions.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#500

Post by n2d4 »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #107
n2d4 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI this is not true and has been debunked in newer studies; the reason why it seems true is because companies that enter the SP500 tend to enter it because they're doing well which makes its stock go up. If you control for that factor, presence in the SP500 does not significantly affect the stock price. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...

It’s not about SPY per-se, but about ETFs in general. Addition to spy is likely an addition to many other big volume ETFs. Top stocks also join QQQ which is another highly liquid ETF. Most market volume according to citi is done by ETFs, approximately 80%. When said ETFs rebalance at start and end of any particular day, we end up with big movements, much wider than the sideways chop we observe during the day when mov…

That theory would only be true in a market without shorts and derivatives. In the real world, hedge funds and market makers will sell into those pension funds, as the underlying asset value has not actually changed, counterbalancing the effect.

Generally, I'd be wary of doing theoretical stock analyses like that. They can be true, but if they're this simple they're almost never true in practice, and if they are then someone is already working on making it not true.

Post reply on HN