100 years of whatever this will be • Hacker News Board

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#921

Post by posix86 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 8:57 AM UTC

WJW wrote: post #658

posix86 wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can't the argument br made that programming, or computing generally, is the process of automating information processing - automating thought? Any many public offices and servants, as well as many regulatory processes and management positions are nothing but menial mental tasks? What decentralization provides is a platform on which these things can be automated and implemented much, much more easily than with tra…

Transparent to everyone able to read the code, perhaps. Those poor souls who have not learned to program in whatever defi language is hip this month will just have to accept that they will have no say in governance, nor even be able to discern what is happening and why. Bureaucracy is bad enough when it's made out of humans, let alone when you have unfeeling machines executing a (possibly buggy) script.

The point is that you CAN see the execution; wether you spend the time to learn to understand is your perogative. If you don't, you rely on experts, just like today. But unlike today, these experts can be independent of the process they explain.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#922

Post by jagged-chisel » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 3:52 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #468

jagged-chisel wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the government doesn't get involved at the outset of new contracts between businesses. I get that government, via the courts, has involvement when there's a dispute, but it's not like two companies wanting a contractural relationship have to file the contract with the government when it's created.

That's note quite true; the entire framework for those contracts is set (regulated) but the jurisdiction they are in. It's also why companies have lawyers on staff and/or retainer. How much do you think it should cost a couple to form the contract for their marriage? Even a proper review of a contract with that complexity will likely cost a thousand or two, let alone making modifications. Times two, of course, as you…

Regulation is a different matter. Two companies can work under a non-legal contract for years - until there's a dispute, then the courts get involved and those regulations are enforced.

The government is not involved at the time of contract formation, there's not some government representative reviewing the contract. Nor do they enforce contracts (and related regulations) until there's a dispute.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#923

Post by jagged-chisel » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 3:58 PM UTC

CRConrad wrote: post #889

jagged-chisel wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the government doesn't get involved at the outset of new contracts between businesses. I get that government, via the courts, has involvement when there's a dispute, but it's not like two companies wanting a contractural relationship have to file the contract with the government when it's created.

> But the government doesn't get involved at the outset of new contracts between businesses. Sure it does, depending on what the contract is about, even between individuals -- at least in most countries: A sale of real estate isn't really done until the deed is properly registered with the appropriate authorities. (I'm guessing this goes even for [at least most of] the otherwise so often wildly different USA.) Marria…

Sure, there are regulated processes around some types of contracts. There are regulations about what's legal to put in a contract, but here's no government employee who shows up to the meeting to make sure it's all perfectly legal. You certainly can form a non-legal contract. The government may never become aware until there's a dispute and it goes to court.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#924

Post by beckman466 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 3:38 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #793

beckman466 wrote: post #776

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This requires centralized RULES (ie. widely agreed-upon standards of behaviour) yes, or even clearer: the rules for any holochain app are visible/public. whereas today we meet in Zuck's living room and he dictates what we can speak/do, using the holochain framework (an end-to-end, open source, P2P app framework) everyone holds a copy of the rules themselves and everyone does their own computing and storage. no more…

> people working on Uber’s technology would prefer to build a system whose social impact they could be proud of the author omitted the part where those people would prefer to also keep the compensation they receive currently. And it is this constraint that prevents people from "building systems with great (positive) social impact that they can be proud of".

> the author omitted the part where those people would prefer to also keep the compensation they receive currently.

well yes, that's what happens when the means of production are privately owned: workers have to sell their labor.