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

81–90 of 554 posts

Re: Are we the baddies?

#81

Post by cortesoft »

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…

> What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again

Wouldn't the market purist argue that this just means the good is mispriced, and tickets should actually be what the price is with the premium added? What you really need is to just raise the prices of the tickets and the price to jump the queue?

Re: Are we the baddies?

#83

Post by immibis »

vasco wrote: post #67

Nothing will make a nerd a communist faster than getting a taste of real life on dating apps.

Dating apps aren't real life - they're holodecks designed to make you think you need to buy premium.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#85

Post by praptak »

afiodorov wrote: post #13

We should not underestimate the timeless human response to being manipulated: disengagement. This isn't theoretical, it's happening right now. The boom in digital detoxes, the dumbphone revival among young people, the shift from public feeds to private DMs, and the "Do Not Disturb" generation are all symptoms of the same thing. People are feeling the manipulation and are choosing to opt out, one notification at a tim…

You cannot disengage from capitalism. The tricks you describe are perhaps useful to not be the slowest antelope in the herd but that doesn't mean you are fully free from being exploited.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#86

Post by n2d4 »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #78
hardwaresofton wrote: post #74

> If you open a government S&P 500 account for everyone with $1,000 at birth that’ll pay their social security cause it like…goes up…wait who’s creating this value again? This is a good point. Some VCs were major proponents of this (and tons of other business people I'm sure), but this is of course just a guaranteed inflow into the largest companies and the companies that think they will be large some day. Yet anothe…

It is an allocation to the biggest companies at any time. ETFs need to rebalance, increase, decrease shares of a given stock and even evict them. Buying shares on SPY exposes you to the current companies but also any companies that will join. If a company gets evicted, then there is massive drop in their stock pricing as most movement is mechanistic and done by ETFs. Well massive is relative. For example last week we…

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...

Re: Are we the baddies?

#87

Post by robin_reala »

delusional wrote: post #17
svnt wrote: post #3

I find these posts primarily interesting as a sort of demographic heatmap. Like now it has gotten to the point where instead of only chasing their interest of choice (geohot hacking, in this case), this person has become aware of the issue, and been sufficiently motivated to write a post about it. geohot is pretty deep into the center of the map afaict.

I think this is what struck me as well. Hearing what I can only describe as radical anti-capitalism coming from George Hotz was not what I expected when I opened that link. That said I have felt the same feelings expressed by Hotz in this post. I commend him for saying it.

It’s not particularly radical is it? Maybe I’m in a bit of a bubble.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#88

Post by kragen »

cortesoft wrote: post #81
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…

> What they didn't forsee is what happens when everyone has wound up paying the premium, and the queue is now with you again Wouldn't the market purist argue that this just means the good is mispriced, and tickets should actually be what the price is with the premium added? What you really need is to just raise the prices of the tickets and the price to jump the queue?

The market purist might argue for a second-price auction for boarding order, where people board in the order of highest sealed bid for boarding order to lowest, but pay the amount bid by the person behind them in the sequence; or for "Paris Metro Pricing" where everyone being in the "priority" line results in a large fraction of them opting not to pay the premium for the next flight they take. Or they might think up something I haven't thought of.

Re: Are we the baddies?

#89

Post by throw37383848 »

wiseowise wrote: post #50
throw393949 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who think needing clean underwear is weak. Washing clothes was discovered several thousands years ago. And boarding plane is much faster. I really do not want to pay for your luggage!

> Washing clothes was discovered several thousands years ago. So you carry high quality detergent, and clean washing machine with delicate setting, and then air dry your clothes? Nice.

Yes, I carry a few grams of detergent powder in a zip lock bag. I wash in clean dry bag to avoid dirty sinks. And I air dry my clothes over night!

It is simpler and faster than dealing with hotel laundry, laundromat or carrying extra 10kg of clothes around!

Re: Are we the baddies?

#90

Post by imiric »

cedws wrote: post #21
csours wrote: post #11

Before you pay for boosts on a dating app, pay for good pictures. Here is what a man seeking woman profile needs: 1. Good Pictures. Honest. Good lighting. Appropriate grooming and attire (whatever than means in your social context). Smile in a carefree way in most of the pictures. 2. Attractive man in the pictures. 3. No icks. Yes the pictures are more important than being attractive. As a matter of storytelling, the…

Or just stop playing the game. Like a parasite, dating apps only survive while their host is alive. You can pay for pictures, spend hours a day scrolling, pretend to be someone you’re not, blunt every aspect of your personality that may be an “ick.”Maybe you’ll eventually win if you keep pulling the lever. But then you’ve just contributed to the problem. It’s just not worth it in my view. I gave up. Being a singleton…

Playing devil's advocate: embellishing one's own features is a common tactic for attracting a mate in the real world as well. Courtship is a game, not just for humans. During this phase you rarely get to know the other person. You meet their best facade first, and then slowly get to know the person behind it. If you refuse to play this game, then you're just lowering your chances of attracting a partner. Which is fine, but it's good to be aware of this.

What GP is suggesting is simply making an effort to showcase your features. The most attractive person on Earth could be rejected if their pictures are of poor quality. That's just common sense. Being genuinely attractive by modern societal standards is important, but the first step is making an effort.

Dating apps can be a good way of finding a partner. After all, they're just the modern equivalent of making the initial connection. Their problem is the same as with any SaaS: companies are incentivized to keep users on the platform for as long as possible, which they do by engaging in shady tactics like artificially controlling the visibility of user profiles, while squeezing out as much profit out of users as they can. This is bad news for men, who are overwhelmingly the ones using these services and are willing to accept the downright predatory tactics of these companies.

But in theory, there's nothing wrong with the concept of dating apps. They're just corrupted by the usual user hostile incentives. A dating service with the right incentives could appear tomorrow to disrupt this rotten industry.

Post reply on HN