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

Are Cities Too Complicated?

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#51

Post by saryant »

lobf wrote: post #48
pdkl95 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a minor part of the internet > a two-way partition These are localized problems, not common-mode failures . I'm talking about a problem with something that takes out a significant portion of the internet. This isn't about a simple network partition; a common-mode failure is a problem in something that is common to an entire class of devices. A totally contrived example might be a worm that bricks routers (we've see…

What about a simpler idea, like sudden, widespread lack of electricity?

Diesel generators?

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#52

Post by brazzledazzle »

tsunamifury wrote: post #6

This is the fundamental premise that object oriented thinking was created to solve. You cannot understand a sufficiently advanced system from both an overview and granular view. You have to either see the overview and trust the granular objects, or specialize in one granular object and then trust your adjacent objects. Its a problem written about in detail by Marcus Aurelius in Meditations when he comments on running…

I've met micro-managers that actually defend micro-management but even if you think it's a viable way to actually get what you want from your reports this is an objective fundamental problem with it as a management style. You simply can't scale it to any useful degree because any kind of scale requires trust and delegation.

Once you pass that magic threshold the people that report to you will take advantage of any slack you give because micro-managers don't inspire or create loyalty. They will also actively avoid making decisions because that's the manager's job and they don't want them all over their ass for being autonomous. At that point you're a manager with no time to think about the long term and you're in firefighting mode constantly. And I can't say I have any sympathy. You reap what you sow.

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#53

Post by yason »

Cities have developed in a complex and often fascinating manner, but along the way, we have portions of these systems that are more complex than any single person can understand.

Just like life itself.

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#54

Post by warfangle »

jomamaxx wrote: post #30
wcummings wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to seem mean, but you're like a caricature of a country person. People are living things which grow to suit their environment, everyone thinks their way is the best way and that their hometown is the coolest. When you say things like "city people care more about money" and "city people are mean" you sound like a bumpkin.

Maybe he's a caricature, but he's 100% right. I grew up going to school in the burbs, all summer in a small home-town - and have lived in several major cities. 'City people' are definitely more about the money. Small towns are communities. Everyone knows everyone - often for multiple generations. Families have ties - not just people. You can't 'not care about' someone you've known for 40 years, even if you don't know…

> Some really odd red-necky types showed up - and don't mean negative - just poor. They were welcome. Old guys in wheelchairs. Young partiers. It was an unbelievably mixed crowd.

And had a trans person showed up, how would that have gone? A Latinx person? A queer couple?

Had the opposite experience moving from a suburb to a major metropolitan area.

There's a level of community here (not all communities are communities that straight white tech workers are involved with or are welcome in) that is unparalleled.

It may cause the hyper privileged to become more individualistic but for everyone else we have thriving communities with true friendships and support networks.

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#55

Post by pjc50 »

warfangle wrote: post #54
jomamaxx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he's a caricature, but he's 100% right. I grew up going to school in the burbs, all summer in a small home-town - and have lived in several major cities. 'City people' are definitely more about the money. Small towns are communities. Everyone knows everyone - often for multiple generations. Families have ties - not just people. You can't 'not care about' someone you've known for 40 years, even if you don't know…

> Some really odd red-necky types showed up - and don't mean negative - just poor. They were welcome. Old guys in wheelchairs. Young partiers. It was an unbelievably mixed crowd. And had a trans person showed up, how would that have gone? A Latinx person? A queer couple? Had the opposite experience moving from a suburb to a major metropolitan area. There's a level of community here (not all communities are communitie…

I believe the term is "communities of choice". In a small community there is only one community and everyone has to be in it, for good or ill. In a city you can make a much better community suited to you - but it requires active effort to maintain that link, so it's much easier to fall off and become invisibly alone.

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#56

Post by pjc50 »

tomkat0789 wrote: post #10

I don't know how useful biological ideas will be to urban planning, but this sentence tickled my brain: "...This can include such things as cataloging bugs and unexpected behaviors in our infrastructure (like how a naturalist might collect insects)" This sounds like what anybody working on a computer can use at a place like Stack Overflow. People have problems, post a description of it, and somebody else who happens…

e.g. https://www.fixmystreet.com/

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#57

Post by acjohnson55 »

tsunamifury wrote: post #6

This is the fundamental premise that object oriented thinking was created to solve. You cannot understand a sufficiently advanced system from both an overview and granular view. You have to either see the overview and trust the granular objects, or specialize in one granular object and then trust your adjacent objects. Its a problem written about in detail by Marcus Aurelius in Meditations when he comments on running…

Really, this is the idea behind every paradigm for programming. It's all about creating rules, structures, and abstractions to compartmentalize software horizontally and vertically (so to speak) and formalize relationships between the pieces.

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#58

Post by wcummings »

jomamaxx wrote: post #45
wcummings wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>your comment might be a kind of bigotry The irony is so deep.

">your comment might be a kind of bigotry The irony is so deep." I was making generalizations about people that I think is true. But I wasn't calling people names, or making them seem as though they are 'out of touch and stupid' because they are either from the city or a small town. There are advantages and disadvantages of both - but city people are by far and away more 'individualist', in much the same way that 'Am…

I was referring to the post I originally replied to, which has since been edited. It called "city people" selfish, depressed and obsessed with money among other tired stereotypes.

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#59

Post by restalis »

pdkl95 wrote: post #13
tsunamifury wrote: post #6

This is the fundamental premise that object oriented thinking was created to solve. You cannot understand a sufficiently advanced system from both an overview and granular view. You have to either see the overview and trust the granular objects, or specialize in one granular object and then trust your adjacent objects. Its a problem written about in detail by Marcus Aurelius in Meditations when he comments on running…

> If each one requires knowledge of the entire system The general problem is the growing number of dependencies. James Burke in "Connections" warned that civilization is an interconnected web of technology traps [1]. We survive as long as everything works (or "mostly" works), but there is a risk of cascade failure. More recently, Dan Geer warned[2] about the same type of problem: In the last couple of years, I've fou…

Interesting! I used to wonder myself about such a dependency pushed on money. There are a lot of efforts to get all the society cashless, and it's understandable because there are upsides for many involved parties, but the downside is the reliance on its infrastructure that can fail or be attacked. I also used to wonder if people will consider this vulnerability without a precedent or not. I see this state of things persists in a lot of other systems too.

Re: Are Cities Too Complicated?

#60

Post by restalis »

kansface wrote: post #17
pdkl95 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If each one requires knowledge of the entire system The general problem is the growing number of dependencies. James Burke in "Connections" warned that civilization is an interconnected web of technology traps [1]. We survive as long as everything works (or "mostly" works), but there is a risk of cascade failure. More recently, Dan Geer warned[2] about the same type of problem: In the last couple of years, I've fou…

I don't think it matters too much that most institutions no longer accept paper since paper is just the external interface. You get no more reliability if they did when all critical processes rely on technology. In other words, you aren't walking your check to the IRS, the postal service couldn't deliver it, your bank couldn't cash it even if they did, and WTF would the IRS do with a billion checks?

"WTF would the IRS do with a billion checks?"

You just pointed out a reliance on banking system. IRS can not function without it and that may be considered a problem. For a fail-safe measure, other means of payment or taxation should be devised/allowed, like paying with gold (or other valuable assets) or provision of services for local/national authorities.

Post reply on HN