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

100 years of whatever this will be

apenwarr.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 924 posts

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#741

Post by leonixyz »

Man: if you weren't able to design a big, centralized system that works, don't repeat the same propaganda you were fed with for years: that is, that central state-level planification don't work. Look at China, and tell them their system is going to crash. They will laught at you, and you deserve it.

Stop repeating this propaganda and start questioning your assumptions. You are saying that we need some kind of overall hierarchy and regulamentation. This is what the world is trying to do since decades with international organizations. Like the UNO, who is asking since almost thirty years to stop the embargo against Cuba.

Start complying with the international rules and the world's democratic institutions, then come back giving us a lesson about what we need to do.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#742

Post by sam0x17 »

webmaven wrote: post #85
nine_k wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> take these 50 regulations, get rid of them, and replace them with one simple one that gives you better outcomes But this is exactly the "we need fewer regulations" approach, implemented sanely.

> But this is exactly the "we need fewer regulations" approach, implemented sanely. The problem is that people conflate "fewer regulations" with "less regulation". We certainly need fewer regulations (there are too many and they are too complex). But we need more regulation (too much falls outside of the current regulations' scope). Both aspects of the status quo seem to be a result of regulatory capture by concentra…

Specifically, we need more regulatory coverage coming from a fewer number of regulations. That is the guiding star. More restrictions, more elegant / simpler rules / fewer actual rules.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#743

Post by cryptonector »

davidw wrote: post #142
pjkundert wrote: post #39

This article is profoundly insightful. I have been searching for patterns and insights in this field for 25 years. What apenwarr concludes is true: All we need is to build distributed systems that work. That means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. The problem is, everyone wants distributed systems that require everyone else to agree (global consensus), which is literally impossible (see: CAP theor…

> Tyranny No. What he's saying is that there are 'distributed' aspects like two people deciding on a price for something. Not everyone has to agree on that price and that's fine! That's how markets work. But we do need rules like if I give you money for something and then you tell me to get lost... that I have some recourse. Everyone needs to roughly agree to those rules.

It's a matter of how much we all have to agree to.

Agreeing to contract law is fine, for example.

It's possible to go too far. If you're going to use force to get people to do things they don't want to, you might be going too far. Naturally, there are such things that aren't tyranny: taxes for example. Even with taxes there are levels of taxation that are tyrannical. For example, a 100% property tax would be tyrannical.

People are going to disagree about where the boundary between tyranny and not-tyranny lies. If you have a very sizeable minority saying "this is tyranny", well, it probably is (but doesn't have to be).

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#745

Post by hoseja »

mcguire wrote: post #435
delusional wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that all the things you are listing are also on the inside of the system. There's certainly an element of rebellion to protests for example, but it's also a consolation price. Elon Musk doesn't have to protest, neither does Jeff Bozos. They just call up their preferred politician and the system dances for them. Protests are an opium fed to the disenfranchised masses to keep them from fundamentally changing…

But grassroots campaigns and protests do result in change. Not quickly enough for many people, but if your alternative is burning everything down....

Occupy had a chance to maybe actually change something. Then one night, all the significant leaders were disappeared and nobody ever heard about it again, really.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#746

Post by tinco »

CTmystery wrote: post #575
tinco wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy you feel that way ;) > We've got to repress those urges of curiosity to appease glorious science No, it's to appease our desire to live in a society that aligns with our morality. If you'd read the religious books for what they are and respect them for their interpretation of what it means to be a kind and loving human being, instead of using them as tools to manipulate the minds of the unwashed masses into beh…

I believe the parent understood more than you are giving them credit for. You don't think you're being too dogmatic when you replace one authority (scripture) for another (science) while retaining the exact same language?

I understand their point, I just don't think I'm being too dogmati. I'll respond to your other comment with my viewpoint.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#747

Post by LordDragonfang »

Each of the first six bullet points, as well as the last one, sound exactly like the kinds of things that I see leftists bringing up as the inevitable result of "late stage capitalism". The author even sort of admits this:

> Capitalism has become a "success disaster."

It's therefore fascinating to see someone take all those exact points and conclude that these problems are not, in fact, natural consequences of the values and incentive structures of capitalism, but rather the result of just not doing capitalism the right way.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#748

Post by ntr-- »

pjkundert wrote: post #39

This article is profoundly insightful. I have been searching for patterns and insights in this field for 25 years. What apenwarr concludes is true: All we need is to build distributed systems that work. That means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. The problem is, everyone wants distributed systems that require everyone else to agree (global consensus), which is literally impossible (see: CAP theor…

Incredible.

> There is of course the most obvious horrifically misguided recently-popular "decentralized" system, whose name shall not be spoken in this essay. Instead let's back up to something older and better understood: markets.

My reading was the author was referring here to cryptocurrencies and you read the article, claim it's profound, and then spruik an ERC-20 token.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#750

Post by mcbishop »

zepto wrote: post #622
sangnoir wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reagan pretty much popularized the terms ("welfare queen", "strapping young bucks") with racist intent[1]: those were the images he wished to conjure-up in listener's minds, and not a creation of the media. Just as the word "thug" is currently used by certain personalities/networks today. 1. https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/innocent-mistak...

I didn’t say it was a creation of the Media. I said they use it that way. It’s good to trace it back to Reagan. What is not so clear is why the person I was responding to thinks it’s their racism that causes them to think of those images, and not just that they have been exposed to Reagan’s imagery through the media.

You write as if one's passive racism and one's past exposure to racist sentiments are entirely separate. I think the former largely reflects the latter.
Post reply on HN