100 years of whatever this will be • Hacker News Board

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#891

Post by CRConrad » Fri, Dec 03, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #522

burntoutfire wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marriage is not a religious practice. Proof: non-religious people get married all the time.

> Marriage is not a religious practice. I, of course, agree with you in principle. However much of the controversy is around the religious aspect -- ie some religions have a narrow definition of marriage which we've codified into law. part of me wonders if it would be smarter for us to cede the terminology to the religious and just remove "marriage" as a term from the government and instead normalize another term, pe…

I'm with the McGuffin on this: Marriage existed long before Christianity, so if anyone gets to give up the word, it's the religionists. Or, heck, let's be generous and let them keep using the term, provided they use it with a qualifier: "Religious marriage", or something. As long as everybody knows that's not what actually counts for anything in the real world... But the word "marriage" in itself is part of language just like any other word, and there's no sensible reason to let the religionists co-opt even some small part of that.

(That's actually how it works, AFAIK, in traditionally deeply Catholic but legally wholly secular France: People "get married" twice. Once [usually first, AIUI] legally at the magistrate, and [then] optionally also in church, by a priest. But the latter is only "for show" -- for any deeply religious mothers and aunts who think that's "the real deal"; and, at a guess, in no small part to give the bride the grand show she's always been dreaming about.)

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#892

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Fri, Dec 03, 2021, 11:24 PM UTC

supernovae wrote: post #701

dcow wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly don’t think DeFi is, at its heart, anti-regulation. I do think a lot of early proponents are armchair anarchists, but that’s just the scene . I think it’s anti corruption/abuse of power by institutions too large to fail—often due to lack of meaningful regulatory political power, across the board. (You’ll probably easily find people playing with web3 dns also advocating for personal data regulations, for examp…

Today there was a crypto hack that cost over 110 million because the website's cloudflare key was hacked/leaked apparently. With 0 regulation and no recourse built into crypto, one poor soul lost 50.8 million in 900 bitcoins. You're not going to replace people problems with tech. Period.

Never say never. Whatever human problems remain after there are no more humans will probably become tech problems.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#893

Post by CRConrad » Fri, Dec 03, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #869

themacguffinman wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who fought gay marriage argued that expanding the institution to include same sex pairings would demean what they consider sacred and what they think all of their countrymen should consider sacred too. A common meme was "next you'll be saying we can marry X" with the clear implication that we should not be able to just marry X. But your idea of a win-win compromise is "let's expand it even further so I can…

i think somewhere along the conversation i either misrepresented myself or you missed something though... The compromise is to cede the word "marriage" from a governmental legally defined word to a word that can be used by each person for their contextual meaning -- which is the only globally true usage of "marriage" -- marriage hasn't meant exactly one woman and one man in a literal monogamous pairing in basically a…

> i think somewhere along the conversation i either misrepresented myself or you missed something though...

I don't think you misrepresented yourself, nor that I misunderstood what you meant.

> The compromise is to cede the word "marriage" from a governmental legally defined word to a word that can be used by each person...

But I do think that's a bad idea. Language belongs to everyone, not any religion. If they want their own separate word for a societal concept that has no basis in any religion, let them come up with their own new word for it. Marriage existed long before Christianity or Islam, and I'd guess before Judaism too. Ancient Egyptian pharaohs were married, weren't they? And I doubt even they came up with the idea. But society, and probably even "government" of some kind, existed even then. In fact, AFAICS at least "society" must have -- the whole idea of marriage makes no sense except in relation to the rest of society: "We're in a long-term exclusive relationship; please treat us, in many respects, as a single unit." If a couple are the only two people in existence, it makes no difference if they're "married" or not; it only starts to matter if there are other people around.

To extend the message I usually advocate giving to religionists: Just as you keep your pecker in your pants and out of my wife, you should keep your sexual mores in your bedroom and out of mine; your faith in your church and out of society as a whole; and [new addition] your ideas about marriage among yourselves and out of everyone else's language.

Who the fuck do those nutjobs think they "are,* to decide what everyone else understands as "marriage"? And why do you advocate ceding this power over what separates Man from the rest of the animals, namely language, to them?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#894

Post by jv22222 » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

> We don't need deregulation. We need better designed regulation.

This is such an important statement. The hub of this article really.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#895

Post by scubbo » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 1:13 AM UTC

bsagdiyev wrote: post #233

whatshisface wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It improves that process in a disintegrating third world country, which many of us may find ourselves in within our lifetimes.

No it doesn’t and no you won’t. Where is this fatalism coming from?

Paying the barest amount of attention to the news and being repeatedly confronted with the myriad ways that once-first-world countries are crumbling.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#896

Post by jodrellblank » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #443

nouveaux wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"someone who requires everyone to agree about what's done with trees on your own property could well be considered tyrranical." 100% agree with the example of someone's tree on their 200 acre farm. However, if I have a dying tree that's a risk to falling on my neighbor's house, it would far less tyrannical for the neighbor to force me to remove the tree through the government. Proximity to others plays a big role.

> it would far less tyrannical for the neighbor to force me to remove the tree through the government The neighbor wouldn't be the tyrannical one. And, there's better solutions - put the liability for the tree on the person whose property it's on. That's a fair assignment of responsibility. I do think it would be tyrannical for the government to declare that all trees must be removed if they meet certain criteria.

Who "puts liability on" someone and who enforces the ownership of property in your example, without being the same tyranny you are trying to avoid?

Tree falls on house, tree owner doesn't want to pay their liability, what happens?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#897

Post by CRConrad » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

cblconfederate wrote: post #535

colechristensen wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You taxed and regulated at ports of entry

That's not a regulated market, you can sell elsewhere

If that's your criterion for what constitutes a regulated market, then there can be no such thing as a regulated market, because you can always sell elsewhere.

And defining a concept in a way that means it can't exist makes no sense, so that criterion can't reasonably define this concept. (Was that a reductio ad absurdum?)

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#898

Post by Karrot_Kream » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 1:52 AM UTC

preseinger wrote: post #880

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all regulations are written in blood, and not all regulations have their intended effect. Aviation is a great example of this. Yes aviation in most of the developed world continues to be extremely safe and the regulations are largely written in blood, off the backs of many failed aviation experiments. But regulations _are_ stifling aircraft design and the FAA is trying to desperately figure out how to not calcify…

Rethought and improved, yes. Abandoned as fundamentally broken, no.

Correct that was the whole point of my post. Regulations need to be constantly rethought. The positions of "regulation good" or "regulation bad" are just too simple to be practical.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#899

Post by zapataband1 » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #215

zapataband1 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I studied physics and the agreement I think we need is that we are literally a super-organism about to ensure its own destruction. I hate to use the term mass consciousness or whatever but it's really irresponsible to me how people are still arguing between flavors of ideologies that push us towards being more individualistic.

Reminds me of this: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconsci...

Woah cool! Thanks for sharing, this actually reminds me of this quote:

The essence of money is … the mediating activity or movement, the human, social act by which man’s products mutually complement one another, is estranged from man and becomes the attribute of money, a material thing outside man. Since man alienates this mediating activity itself, he is active here only as a man who has lost himself and is dehumanised; the relation itself between things, man’s operation with them, becomes the operation of an entity outside man and above man. Owing to this alien mediator – instead of man himself being the mediator for man – man regards his will, his activity and his relation to other men as a power independent of him and them. His slavery, therefore, reaches its peak. It is clear that this mediator now becomes a real God, for the mediator is the real power over what it mediates to me. Its cult becomes an end in itself. - Karl Marx

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#900

Post by jazzdev » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #743

davidw wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tyrannic…

The notion of "using force" to get someone to agree is interesting.

If someone wants to pay me $X for Y. Then you think there's force involved there somewhere? If is X is too large, is that force? If I'm very poor and will accept a really low X, is that force?