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

851–860 of 924 posts

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#851

Post by civilized »

rvba wrote: post #847
civilized wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you didn't personally insult me here, but I hate this comment. I'm a remote worker and I spend a large chunk of my time every week helping other team members. I'm very, very good at it. From now on, I'm going to ask everyone about their attitude towards remote work during interviews, and I'll be a hard NO on anyone with the attitude displayed here. You can have employees who hate remote or you can have remote…

Lots of people have that attititude (80%?) - and it is not connected to remote work. They do just the absolute minimum. In some ways it is debatable if they arent right. Also: if you are the one who cares in a team of those who dont (which is the usual situation), then you are in a world of pain. Snafu.

Blah blah blah, cynicism and disengagement is correct and right, etc. I know it's a prevalent attitude.

People can live their lives how they want but I don't want such people on my team.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#852

Post by BeFlatXIII »

civilized wrote: post #851
rvba wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people have that attititude (80%?) - and it is not connected to remote work. They do just the absolute minimum. In some ways it is debatable if they arent right. Also: if you are the one who cares in a team of those who dont (which is the usual situation), then you are in a world of pain. Snafu.

Blah blah blah, cynicism and disengagement is correct and right, etc. I know it's a prevalent attitude. People can live their lives how they want but I don't want such people on my team.

Unless you’re a prestigious non-profit, good luck finding anyone at all to hire if you’re filtering on attitude.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#853

Post by BeFlatXIII »

sam0x17 wrote: post #22
JanisL wrote: post #4

I strongly believe that money itself has been corrupted lately, this then causes all number of bad flow on effects to happen. A massive shift happened when central banks started getting involved in direct purchases of various asset types and we started to see a major distortion happen in monetary policy that which has distorted the functioning of money itself. For example who would care if their business is completel…

You're merely documenting how current regulations are inefficient at catching current abuses. With proper regulations, these kind of abuses could be mostly prevented. With anti-regulation sentiment permeating government and politics right now, this becomes much, much more difficult. People will use the failure of antiquated regulations that need to be updated as justification for removing or kneecapping them, because…

It’s always refreshing to see a fellow skeptic of legal precedent in the wild. The precedent set by making the just ruling in one specific case may set up far greater injustices in the future.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#854

Post by 2nd_principles »

JanisL wrote: post #4

I strongly believe that money itself has been corrupted lately, this then causes all number of bad flow on effects to happen. A massive shift happened when central banks started getting involved in direct purchases of various asset types and we started to see a major distortion happen in monetary policy that which has distorted the functioning of money itself. For example who would care if their business is completel…

I really don’t get why so many smart people come up with every possible theoretical solution and yet they fail to observe that Bitcoin was engineered to solve this exact problem

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#855

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

indigochill wrote: post #550
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the analogy, but in many cases the societal ills that defi is trying to solve were caused by software in the first place (e.g. internet advertising as a democracy-eroder). Also, the protectors of the status-quo are putting a lot of software people to work in protecting that status quo, so tempting them to the other side means compatibility with their skillset. Lastly, anyone who would overturn the status quo m…

> Lastly, anyone who would overturn the status quo must provide the people with an alternative that's at least as good Depends what "good" means. Something interesting about disruption is it often starts out worse than the incumbent in every way except one key one which people see value in. The incumbent then doesn't see it as a threat because it's so much worse, until a critical mass of users who value the one bette…

Oh yeah, it's not that the new kids on the block need to be better than the old guard on all dimensions, but if we're really going to switch (rather than just having the disruptors as the occasional mistress), the switch has to be worth it. This is why I don't worry that crypto is going to release some kind of monster that can't be put back in its cage.

To value something is a choice. People are going to chose to value whichever network/token/whatever is actually worth switching to.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#856

Post by pjkundert »

not_really wrote: post #826
pjkundert wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The project was funded through an ICO a couple years ago; these will be exchangeable for the in-system HoloFuel cryptocurrency, when the project goes live. Of course, the project isn’t associated with Ethereum in any way.

Look, I'm a fan of this, and thanks for sharing - hadn't heard of this project until today. However claiming it's not associated with ethereum in any way, really? There's mention of an erc-20 token on the home page. Come on, man.

You know how ICOs are used to fund non-Ethereum projects, right?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#857

Post by pjkundert »

nadahalli wrote: post #837
ntr-- wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was like "This cannot be the top comment on HN". It is. Sigh.

I usually agree with you, regarding top posts on HN.

Usually I wonder how it is that uninteresting first-order effects dominate.

This is a chance for us all to consider something perhaps more profound.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#858

Post by spiralx »

nemothekid wrote: post #412
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universal Healthcare doesn't particularly threaten corporate interests either. Remember when centrist Obama tried to implement the Heritage foundation approved version and everyone went a little crazy for no obvious reason? It would be comforting to think that some evil geniuses were holding back universal healthcare for their own benefit, but it's mostly just lingering stupidity and racism that's holding America bac…

I think it's naive to call politicians stupid. It's clear it's the incentives, particularly the health insurance industry that blocks any effort for universal healthcare; and in the American system it's too easy for one senator to completely stonewall any legislation. For example, it was Joe Lieberman, a senate in Obama's own party, the completely gutted many of the socialized aspects of Obamacare.

It was one politician who blocked a full national health service back in the 70s despite bipartisan support for it - IIRC he used his position as ranking member on the Ways & Means committee to stonewall the whole thing. American political parties are probably some of the weakest in the world, they have almost zero ability to control what their members do or even who their members are.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#859

Post by spiralx »

deathcalibur wrote: post #367
cs702 wrote: post #193

In practice, any distributed system that doesn't have an explicit hierarchy evolves to have an implicit hierarchy, because economies of scale and network effects favor the increasing concentration of resources and connectivity, respectively. The OP is right about that. In any distributed system, those nodes that by luck or skill become more cost-efficient and inter-connected tend to become even more cost-efficient an…

This happens with teams of humans as well. Without a formal leader, teams will naturally have one (or more) leaders emerge. The ideal team doesn’t need leadership and consists of mostly self-sufficient members, but the de jure leader merely exists at that point to ensure some tyrant doesn’t come to power. Since this isn’t very time consuming, they are free to do other work haha.

The essay linked in the article is absolutely spot on when talking about the dynamics of groups with formalised structures vs those that are decentralised, it's well worth a read.

https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#860

Post by kiliantics »

noworriesnate wrote: post #515
kiliantics wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strategy commonly known as "Dual Power" among the left, as named by Lenin. The far left have obviously thought a lot about how to change social systems and, if you are interested in doing so, there is a lot of good theory in their literature as some have thought very deeply about it.

Interesting, that reminds me of psychohistory from the Federation series by Isaac Asimov. Where would I find that literature?

There is so much out there that I really think it's best to find what works well for you, like something written in a style you could get into. Some punk anarchist type stuff might read cool and edgy or sound whiney to you, whereas reading original Lenin or Bakunin might sound dry or maybe you like the old timey aesthetic. Personally, I'd recommend Murray Bookchin's ideas of Social Ecology. They came out of an attempt to apply a more scientific approach to the problem of how to change society as a whole, including taking into account our lived and natural environment and the looming natural catastrophes. Bookchin tries to adopt the "best" parts of all the leftist ideologies and combine them into a framework for an ideology that can adapt with the times and with new understandings as they arise from each attempt at change.
Post reply on HN