[HN Gopher] 100 years of whatever this will be ___________________________________________________________________ 100 years of whatever this will be Author : mumblemumble Score : 1101 points Date : 2021-12-02 14:35 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (apenwarr.ca) (TXT) w3m dump (apenwarr.ca) | karmakaze wrote: | Most of the items read like specific 2nd order effects of | Capitalism 101. We were always aware of the pros/cons and the | cons have overtaken the pros in our current incarnation. | | https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5002/economics/pros-and-c... | pkdpic wrote: | > Artists really don't get enough of a reward for all the benefit | they provide. | | Love to see this in here. Wondering what the author's personal | definition of artist is though. | tolmasky wrote: | The article mentions that we incorrectly use the term "free | market" to describe the optimal market system, but I'd argue we | do a similar thing with regulation. We use "regulation" to | describe the "ideal regulation", and both these term misuses | divide people that might otherwise agree. | | I'll give one example: patents. Right now there is a discussion | about waiving pharma patents in order to help with vaccine | production in other countries. This is framed as a _government | action against businesses_ , when in reality it is an act of | _deregulation of markets_. Patents are an incredibly heavy handed | government regulation that uses tax dollars to protect state- | sponsored monopolies of "ideas" and "inventions", creating a | huge drain in terms of legal resources (courts, judges, juries if | necessary), have obvious regulatory capture dynamics as that is | in fact the stated goal of a patent, as well as creating entire | sectors of the "private" economy that exist solely to perpetuate | this system (patent lawyers, patent trolls, etc.), not to mention | create networks of "safe havens" of theoretically competitor | companies that are actually "allied" in their accumulation of | mutually-assured-destruction patent portfolios that make it | almost impossible for new startups to enter a field since they | hold no such cards. | | It's unfortunate that the "deregulation" discussion has been | largely co-opted by these corporations as opposed to focusing on | these IMO much more pertinent issues that could actually have a | dramatically more positive effect. | maerF0x0 wrote: | > Let's build what we already know is right. | | Interestingly a friend and I had been discussing political | threads and one thing that is interesting is how, in the US, a 2 | party system has lead to some really awkward tribalism and many | of us think we disagree on everything. But in reality there are | some big group wins to be had if the "middle" block of people | could somehow band together and agree to just do the intersection | of their beliefs. | | some examples were citizens united, the big money moving | elections, lobbyists, government quid pro quo system is blatant | corruption. and I believe a vast majority of the middle agrees | corruption is bad. | | I just learned about https://www.forwardparty.com/team and it | seems like an attempt to address such a thing, would love to hear | from anyone who knows much more. | h2odragon wrote: | > Let's build what we already know is right. | | Agreed. And that will be 10,000 different things. Right now all | the media fuss and discussion from it is about deciding "what do | we know is right" without recognizing (intentionally?) that | there's no one answer to that question. | david-cako wrote: | vote cako | debacle wrote: | For everyone reading this article who agrees with it, I would | encourage you to start reading some history, especially ancient | history, late 1800s history, and the history of colonialism. | | Society, once you look at inputs and outputs, is predicated on | "the masses" abdicating intellectual responsibility to leaders | who leverage them for their own benefit. This has happened since | before recorded history. It is codified into our mainstream | spiritual ethos. We glorify it every day by simply perpetuating | the system we exist in. | | If history is any evidence, things will always continue to get | worse in this part of the cycle, then we will experience a | collapse and rebuilding period. | IAmWorried wrote: | It's gonna happen this decade, I'm sure of it. Covid has | completely screwed our hyperefficient society to the point | where I think no human institutions can stem the massive tidal | wave that is coming. I'd guess that the financial system, the | higher education system, and the political system will all come | undone during this period - there aren't many good bets, but I | think being good with computers is reasonably safe, as | computers are so efficient and eco-friendly that I am almost | certain that they will be the centerpiece of whatever new | system emerges. | wilkommen wrote: | Agreed. Most people find it more comfortable to abdicate their | intellectual responsibility and blindly trust than to seek | individual awareness and evaluate their society independently. | And for good reason! It's pretty painful and scary to think | independently. I think it's at least a little painful and scary | for everyone who is really doing it. | wanderingmind wrote: | Seriously where do all these people come from who think society | is worse today that it was a few decades before. It's not. There | has never been an opportunity for so many people at various | levels. Artists have it the best now in the internet era where | they have various streams to monetize their work. Case in point | is Spotify. Ofcourse Spotify and other providers are going to | make money off artists. But without them most artists worth their | salt would stay poor. | | If you don't see and appreciate the huge progress made across the | world in social life and quality, you have been living under the | rock. | 0xCMP wrote: | the author recognizes and appreciates the successes we've had, | but his point is that while things aren't as good as they could | be using crypto instead of organizing and doing "the work" is | not going to solve things. if nothing else because you'll end | up with the same centralized control at some point or suffer | while the system tries to self correct (if it even could). it | is all a distributed system already so making another system, | with higher built in costs, does not solve the problem. | vrodic wrote: | Hetzner is super affordable alternative to AWS, now with a DC in | US, east coast. | aidenn0 wrote: | > Unregulated markets rapidly devolve into monopolies, | oligopolies, monopsonies, and, if things get really bad, | libertarianism. | | Don't pull any punches, tell us how you _really_ feel... | bluetomcat wrote: | Markets can be seen as regulatory institutions in themselves, | though they exhibit many undesirable side effects. The inherent | "decentralisation" in Western societies is enabled by markets. | Producers meet consumers in a constant feedback loop, production | follows demand. Some producers are weeded out, new classes of | products and their corresponding market types appear. Consumers | can choose what, when and where to buy. What would be political | decisions in a centralised society are market mechanisms in a | market society. | | It goes awry when you add mass media, mass culture and psychology | into the mix. They encourage all kinds of irrational group | behaviour which skews the markets in unpredictable ways. | simonw wrote: | "One SSD in a Macbook is ~1000x faster than the default disk in | an EC2 instance" - I did not know that! | politician wrote: | Not more regulation, not better regulation, but impartial | enforcement of existing regulation. | walterbell wrote: | What's the technological equivalent of regulatory capture of | trusted governance roles? | | 1. system control plane with security vulnerabilities, where the | first attacker can lock out subsequent attackers? | | 2. corporate board without poison-pill, special class of shares | with extra powers, or other defenses against hostile takeover? | | 3. corporate or IP acquisition due to debt, market failure or | poor fiscal governance? | ltbarcly3 wrote: | Like 1/3 to 1/2 of the problems in this list are just problems | with using AWS or other cloud providers. I say this all the time, | and nobody takes it seriously: Don't use the cloud. The cloud | costs more, requires more work to set up, and provides you with | machines with broken IO and 1/50th the capacity you would get if | you just racked servers yourself. | | Let me say it again: Compared to buying servers from Dell (or | whoever) and driving them down to the local COLO and plugging | them in yourself, the cloud: | | - Costs more (between 5x and 20x more over the course of a 4 year | depreciation for hardware). | | - Is more work in the end, by a large factor (you are going to do | a ton of stuff you don't need and are never going to use with the | cloud. When something goes wrong you are going to spend days or | months trying to fix it. Performance is so bad that you have to | build very complex solutions to problems that it is very easy to | just throw hardware at, like having a db server with millions of | IOps, which is extremely easy if you rack hardware and basically | unreasonable due to cost and hard limits in the cloud (Well over | $10K/month for Postgres at _80,000_ iops, which is the most you | can provision). | | - It's more work up front, even if you have no idea how to do | anything to start with. For your deployments to be secure you | have to know what you are doing either way, in AWS you just have | less choices of how to set things up. Most things in AWS are at | least as hard or harder than doing them yourself, and you can't | fix problems you run into. Their tier 1 and tier 2 support are | completely useless and just do keyword matching against their | scripts. | | - It costs WAY more. You pay for more than the cost to buy _much | better_ hardware and the cost to colo that hardware every _4 | months_. Yes that is right, if you go buy a pile of servers from | dell and rack them in a colo, or buy the same capacity from EC2, | the EC2 capacity you get will be far lower. Far far far lower. | And you can 't customize it or redeploy it for other uses as it | gets older. | | - When things break, you _can 't_ fix them. You just have to live | with it or stop caring. IO to disk stalls randomly leaving | processes in uninterruptible IO wait status for 100ms? Get | fucked, they not only won't admit it's a problem, they will also | hide this fact from you in all their cloudwatch metrics, and deny | it is happening. Maybe it's a noisy neighbor, maybe it's their | terrible networking stack, who knows, you'll never figure it out | and you probably can't fix it even if you do. I have weird | failure scenarios in AWS _all the time_ that I have never seen or | even contemplated as reasonable to consider on my own hardware. | | - Cloud deployments are stupid. K8 is an awful system built by | children who don't what is important. I don't even directly deal | with K8 as my actual job, but I spend more time worrying about K8 | to get code shipped today than I ever spent maintaining | deployment scripts when I had to own deployments end-to-end. | Animats wrote: | There's one line in there which is very important. | | _Markets work well as long as they 're in, as we call it in | engineering, the "continuous control region," that is, the part | far away from any weird outliers. You need no participant in the | market to have too much power. You need downside protection | (bankruptcy, social safety net, insurance). You need fair | enforcement of contracts (which is different from literal | enforcement of contracts)._ | | Right there is what's needed to make capitalism work. I've | mentioned previously that a European Union study (I need to find | the reference for that) indicated that it takes about four | substantial players in a market before price competition works. | Three or less becomes oligopoly. The US has three big banks, | three big cell phone services, and three big pharmacy chains. All | act like oligopolies. | | There's an over-regulated edge case, too. The US used to regulate | who could be a trucker, or where airlines could land. That ended | in the 1980s. | | We need criteria for when things are getting out of the stable | region. This is a quantitative thing, and law doesn't do | quantitative very well. So we have a philosophical problem in how | to regulate into the continuous control region region, where | price signals work. | | This is at least a PhD sized problem and possibly a Nobel Prize | in Economics sized problem. | teucris wrote: | > I find myself linking to this article way too much lately, but | here it is again: The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman. | You should read it. The summary is that in any system, if you | don't have an explicit hierarchy, then you have an implicit one. | | We've almost completely discarded "the establishment" because | it's so hard to fix. But when we lose that, we lose an explicit | hierarchy and get the implicit one, which has problems that are | impossible to fix. Rather than chasing a thousand new systems, we | should be fixing the one we have. | mac3n wrote: | > One SSD in a Macbook is ~1000x faster than the default disk in | an EC2 instance. | | is there a reference for this astounding number? | dev_tty01 wrote: | And what about when the EC2 instance is an M1 Mac with SSD? | pjkundert wrote: | 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 theory, and what happens when Partition | occurs). There 's another word for "require _everyone else_ to | agree ": Tyranny. | | Fortunately, the entire universe and everything in it works | _without_ global consensus, just fine (for various definitions of | "fine"). | | There is also methods for building computational distributed | systems that work "fine" in the face of CAP failure: | | https://holo.host | | This is a _serious_ breakthrough. And we really, really need | this, _NOW_. | | Just to whet your appetite, here's some high-level observations | on how these breakthroughs may affect our lives, in the area of | Money: https://perry.kundert.ca/range/finance/holochain- | consistency... | js8 wrote: | > That means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical | regulation. | | Interestingly, he also mentions that central economic planning | doesn't work (although I am not so sure I completely agree with | that thesis), but this sounds very similar to Cybersyn's | design. | pitaj wrote: | Central panning doesn't scale because of limits to economic | knowledge and calculation. You can't possibly know enough | about what everyone needs or wants in an economy. Even if you | did, calculating resource allocation based on that is NP. | goodpoint wrote: | People constantly forget that large multinationals like | Amazon are bigger that many countries, are purely | authoritarian structures and work as 100% centralized | economies. | | > Central panning doesn't scale | | On the contrary, it scaled pretty well in China and in | Soviet Russia, leading to the two cases of the fastest | economical growth on the planet. The problem is not | scalability. | | The problem is that dictatorships (both countries and | private companies) exist to benefit those in power. When | push comes to shove everybody else is expendable. | kelseyfrog wrote: | Take Walmart as an example. If a country, it would rank | 25th economically (above 188 other countries and the | likes of Austria, Argentina, Norway, Ireland, and South | Africa).[1] Walmartian central planning scales at least | that far. | | 1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=35 | 24078 | pitaj wrote: | > large multinationals like Amazon | | I don't know about the internal workings of Amazon | specifically, but many corporations are set up as | hierarchical "business units" that each operate as | separate companies within: selling their products and | services within the company. There's still a market, not | everything is determined centrally. | | > On the contrary, it scaled pretty well in China and in | Soviet Russia, leading to the two cases of the fastest | economical growth on the planet. The problem is not | scalability. | | China grew much faster after it instituted market | reforms. I'm not as familiar with Soviet Russia, but I'd | be surprised if it grew faster than similar market-based | countries during the same time period. | archarios wrote: | Sears mostly collapsed because they decided to make their | internal departments independent competing companies. The | departments acted more in their own interests rather than | in the interests of the whole company... | int_19h wrote: | Soviet Russia actually had to reintroduce markets | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy) to | dig itself out of the economic hole it fell into under | military communism | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism). | sradu wrote: | You must not be from a former communist country. The | system worked for two-three decades during the initial | industrialization phase. When that phase ended growth was | hard to find (the whole system was based around factories | and moving villagers to cities). That's when the numbers | started going down and the system started faking numbers | to give the appearance that all is well and nobody could | disagree with them. | | At a country level (not talking about Amazon) these | systems are fragile and don't handle volatility well. | | Re: Amazon - you can't compare countries with private | corporations. | archarios wrote: | I wonder if the growth problems that SU came across was | more due to external pressures than inherent systemic | limitations of a planned economy | kelseyfrog wrote: | How are the current economic agents solving the NP-hard | problem of economy? It seems like they are are just as | incapable as a computer (assuming the substrate | independence of computation). | Robotbeat wrote: | We definitely do broad-strokes central planning in the US | and every other developed country with tax system design, | social support systems, and industrial policy. | | The Soviet Union sucked, but it lasted an extremely long | time. | | The moral of the story is central planning kinda does work, | just not very well if you do too much of it. | WC3w6pXxgGd wrote: | > The Soviet Union sucked, but it lasted an extremely | long time. | | Less than a century is not "an extremely long time," and | its citizens majorly suffered under the central planning. | There was nothing successful about the Soviet Union. | sfink wrote: | I think it's more that you need layers. A centrally | planned layer of regulation and safety nets that provide | a base level to keep things running (and people alive), | but without the cost and inefficiency of trying to | control everything, and then a more efficient, free | market-like layer on top that relies on the lower layer | to provide the "free" in "free market". | | I believe it would be more productive to argue about | where the layer boundaries should be, rather than | endlessly arguing about whether one or the other layer | should even exist. (Because they'll both always exist. | People will help each other out even in a free-for-all; | and black markets will always come into existence in | rigid, fully-planned economies.) | cmurf wrote: | What is the pattern in common among all industries politics | governments and culture? The article proposes these things are | all interrelated but doesn't make the connections among them. | | Also for going to identify the pattern we need to have a common | frame of reference. The facts have to be indisputable. | | >Everyone seems to increasingly be in it for themselves | | Everyone? This sort of hyperbole makes it difficult to identify | patterns. We have more examples today of public benefit | corporations than 10 50 or 100 years ago. | | Maybe it's subjective or arbitrary, but let's say at 1 billion | dollar valuation a corporation must by law become a public | benefit corporation. Do we always need to have regulatory | regimes compel corporations to comply with civil or social | good? We know about regulatory capture. So we know a regulatory | regime doesn't always work. Sure, it works better than outright | feudalism. | | Is there such a thing as the proper range for wealth | inequality? I don't know that we even know the answer to that | question of let alone what that range would be or how to | maintain that range in a civil way. | | The innovation of the United States of America at its founding, | was its distribution of power. Forming a polyarchy instead of a | monarchy. Of course, it's a biased distribution. Not everyone | gets power. But the idea is that centralized power leads to | corruption. And creating a competitive environment for | ambition, reduces the chances not for corruption, but | totalitarianism. | | But I wonder if democracies have optimized as far as they can. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Yes, the original US idea was that of a central government | that had _very restricted_ power, and a bunch of states that | could reach different decisions within that framework. And | that the people being governed had more influence over what | the state did than over what the country did, so the state | was more responsive to the peoples ' needs, wants, and | desires. | | I would argue that over the years, we have moved away from | that. We now have a much more powerful national government, | that is more ruler over the states. And I think in doing so, | we have gained some things, but we have also lost some | things. | | I think there is merit to the idea of a multi-level | hierarchy, where the higher levels have more restricted areas | of power, but are also harder to change. But there's one | other piece that's needed: Mobility between lower-level | domains. If I don't like what California's doing, I can move | to Texas, and we need similar things (hopefully easier than | physically moving) in other systems. | deltarholamda wrote: | >But I wonder if democracies have optimized as far as they | can. | | If you dig your powdered wig out of the closet and look back | at the founding of the united States of America, their big | idea is still pretty good. The article makes this point, | obliquely: | | >All we need is to build distributed systems that work. That | means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. | | Having the Big Nationwide Things happen at the federal level, | and the Not Quite As Big Local Things happen at the State | level was a fine idea. You can't get Tennessee and North | Carolina to agree on BBQ; do you really think they're going | to have the same ideas on social issues, or how to handle | them? It's all well and good to have nationwide building | codes, but even that falls apart rather quickly. You don't | build the same way in California as you would on the Gulf | Coast. | | Cramming everything into the federal purview wheelhouse is | great if you're in NYC or LA, and you can't stand that some | people in Nebraska or Alabama disagree with you. | thepra wrote: | Seems nice in concept, but Rust and Node.js is a bad and | limiting in execution | [deleted] | wyager wrote: | The fact that holo introduces a shitcoin when any payment | channel (lightning, some USD service, etc) would work means I'm | not going to take it seriously. | pjkundert wrote: | A cryptocurrency that will continue to work reliably and | without a bound on aggregate transaction rate in the face of | network Partitioning is ... a "shitcoin"? | ggm wrote: | > This article is profoundly insightful. | | How about adding a "not" to that and trying it on for size? Is | it really _profound_? | | > There is also methods for building computational distributed | systems that work "fine" in the face of CAP failure: | https://holo.host -This is a serious breakthrough. And we | really, really need this, NOW. | | Umm.. do we? Is this .. OK, forgive me, I've been penalty boxed | for the first time in the last week, and should word this | carefully, but.. my skeptical meter is on stun. Is this ' | _shilling_ ' which is regrettably common in cryptocurrency | conversations? | sva_ wrote: | > https://holo.host | | > HoloToken (HOT) is an ERC-20 token | | I'm not sure a hierarchy in which the Ethereum Foundation, who | gave themselves the absolute majority of Ether currency, is at | the top, is the answer to the struggles/issues postulated in | the essay. | moffkalast wrote: | I'm pretty sure anything running on the mainnet these days | will be 10x more expensive than a classic centralized option | just with gas fees and is as such completely useless. | handrous wrote: | Also: | | - Economy of scale means this won't be "AirBnB for | hosting". I can't negotiate power costs or get as much | efficiency out of my operations as someone with a real | datacenter. Not even close. [EDIT: see also, Bitcoin | mining, which started out "anyone can do it!" but wasn't | anymore as soon as real money got involved. Just buy an | expensive rack of ASICs that aren't good for anything else, | and find some place to arbitrage power costs. Yeah, real | accessible to the masses, that is.] | | - All these "decentralize everything down to the end user" | efforts neglect that most personal computing devices run on | battery and sleep most of the time, these days, and that | trend _does not_ seem likely to reverse. See also: IPFS. | Most folks don 't have an always-on desktop- or server- | class computer for this sort of thing, at all, and would | have to buy one to participate. That's not super appealing. | Also, decentralization tends to come at costs for routing | and lookup, which often end up eating cycles (so, power, | so, battery) on the end user's machine, compared with | centralized options. See again: IPFS. So they end up adding | centralized access points that are what most users actually | interact with (see, yet again...) or their entire audience | is computer nerds. If they have any real, viable use case, | it ends up being _as part of_ a centralized system, to help | make it more resilient or cheaper to operate. | DenseComet wrote: | Yep there is so much overhead to making things | decentralized. Take a look at filecoin sealing. Its a super | cool system with a bunch of fun cryptography and math, but | generating the proofs requires a lot of time and compute | power and adds a whole bunch of restrictions to how you can | upload data. | | If you really, really, want to say your storage is | decentralized, use it, but S3 is a 1000x simpler. | | https://spec.filecoin.io/systems/filecoin_mining/sector/sea | l... https://docs.filecoin.io/mine/hardware-requirements/ | pjkundert wrote: | Nope, Holo / Holochain has nothing to do with Ethereum; HOT | is just the place-holder token (issued during the ICO used to | fund the project, initially, a couple of years ago). | | When the project goes live, it will be exchangeable for the | initial HoloFuel cryptocurrency. | almostkorean wrote: | What makes you think Ethereum Foundation gave themselves the | majority of Ether? I'm pretty sure it was 15% but I might be | wrong | sva_ wrote: | https://etherscan.io/stat/supply | | 72 million Ether were premined | davidw wrote: | > 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. | beambot wrote: | > But we do need rules like if I give you money for something | and then you tell me to get lost... | | That would be "larceny", and there are lots of rules | prohibiting it & court systems to recoup damages. Credit card | companies (for example) are just a more-rapid arbitration | mechanism. | davidw wrote: | That's part of the point of the article. Those rules are | not some kind of distributed system. They are centralized. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | that's half true. | | every actor in the system has its own ledger and they | reconcile transactions at a given point in time. | | you don't need to know what others are doing or who they | are. | | your bank authorize your transactions and then some other | bank receives the order to deposit the money on another | account they control. | | in this sense banking is more decentralized than "one | true ledger to rule them all" | davidw wrote: | I was referring to 'larceny' in my comment as being a | centralized rule. | meheleventyone wrote: | Although in reality enforcement can be selective and vary | by jurisdiction so it's also decentralised in | implementation. | bduerst wrote: | True, but it doesn't make sense to throw out the baby | with the bathwater. | | From what I've seen being argued about proponents of defi | (or smart contracts) is they operate on the premise that | the centralized authority is the bad actor. | | While this is true in some cases, it's not _all_ cases, | and despite it 's flaws there is still a need for | centralized authorities to arbitrate. | int_19h wrote: | The issue with centralized authorities that has to be | mitigated somehow is that, once they appear, they tend to | accummulate more and more power, and inevitably _become_ | a bad actor eventually, even if originally they weren 't | intending to. | | A decentralized approach to this is to have the hierarchy | of authority organized _bottom-up_ rather than top-down. | The hierarchy can then be toppled by "pulling the rug" | at the bottom-most layer when it becomes abusive. OTOH | centralized hierarchies tend to fight this by promoting | principles such as "democratic centralism" (where all | decision making has to flow up before it flows back down, | allowing to control it at the top). | pjkundert wrote: | Larceny (small- or industrial-scale) can only exist if | counterparties are kept _ignorant_ of previous larceny on | the part of the bad actor. | | It takes centralized systems to keep people ignorant. | | In good, decentralized systems which demand long-term | public track records of agent behaviour, with | decentralized memory of these records, malevolent | behaviour by an agent would rapidly make that agent | incapable of future larceny. | | Much of the disappointment with government and their | three-letter agencies, is the growing belief (and | mounting evidence) of long-term, wide-spread larceny, | mischief and even evil on the part of government agents | -- with the knowledge, support and protection of the | government. | | It is critical to use systems that make bad behaviour | impossible to hide. | | This requires _centralized_ RULES (ie. widely agreed-upon | standards of behaviour), but _decentralized_ KNOWLEDGE | (large numbers of _random_ actors, confirming that | behaviours meet the standards). | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | One person can hit another person over the head without | any centralized authority being involved. So I don't | think your claim is correct at all. Assuming if somebody | breaks an agreement, you just hit them over the head with | a stick. | crdrost wrote: | Right but that gets into scaling problems and | arguments... for a hundred people sticks might work, for | a thousand it gets dicey, by 10,000 things start to break | down as factionalism spontaneously emerges: within our | tribe we handle things via social cohesion and weak | displays of symbolic force, outside our tribe we handle | things via stronger displays of retribution | | Point is that "hit with a stick" happens to also | centralize power, albeit dynamically, at scale. | | If you're really looking for a counterexample to | centralized institutions, a better metaphor is probably | "ecosystem." No centralized authority tells the lions to | be kings and queens of the savannah, their status as apex | predators comes dynamically from some transform | {biosphere} -> {biosphere} finding a natural fixed point | which has stability simply from the abstract mathematics | of fixed points. A similar dynamic stability exists in | the US in the balance of power between Republicans and | Democrats, no central authority says that there have to | be only two parties, but rather the rules of the game | state "we divide everything into districts and every race | is run as winner-take-all" which naturally induces this | 50/50 two-party split that will destroy the country | eventually | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | I guess you could argue the set of laws is the central | authority that produces a two-party system, even though | it may not have been intentional. Presumably you could | adjust the laws so that other constellations would | emerge. | | Also why do people have to live in societies of millions | of individuals? Perhaps smaller units would be better. To | some degree that is already what happens, as for example | villages can decide some things for themselves. The | question is just who should get to decide what. | pavel_lishin wrote: | > _Assuming if somebody breaks an agreement, you just hit | them over the head with a stick._ | | But that's not a society any of us want to live in. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | I didn't say you should run society like that. I only | provided an example to prove that centralized control is | not necessary to enforce rules. | | Typically people form groups that enforce certain rules. | You can have bigger and smaller groups. Some big | countries are very centralized, others less so - I think | federalization in the US serves to counteract | centralization? Ideally people have some degree of | freedom to switch to groups whose rules align with their | own preferences. | | It is not an all or nothing, there can be degrees of | centralization and decentralization. | | Of course we can not escape the laws of nature in the | end. | watwut wrote: | >Assuming if somebody breaks an agreement, you just hit | them over the head with a stick. | | If this is possible, then it is equally possible to just | hit anyone you please with stick so that they are forced | to do what you want. | | Which means, the most violent eager person gets to rule. | Which is what people who prefer court system don't want. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | If you just hit people with sticks, they are bound to hit | back. I don't understand your example. | Ensorceled wrote: | I know several people that it would be VERY unwise for | almost anyone to attempt to hit them with sticks. Do they | get to do larceny as much as they want in this system? | virgildotcodes wrote: | No, because in this perfectly rational world a bunch of | weaker humans would inevitably band together to overcome | the stronger stick man. | | This is exactly how things would go, which is why in | human history warlords have never been a thing, and | violent, oppressive men have never built empires. | fabianhjr wrote: | > everyone wants distributed systems that require everyone else | to agree (global consensus) | | Not really, Secure Scuttlebutt is highly subjective and has | been in use for a while. ( https://ssbc.github.io/scuttlebutt- | protocol-guide/ ) | | Some spinoffs adopt that explicit subjectivity of each user. | rektide wrote: | Paul Frazee (of Beaker Browser) had a thread that got some good | reach on distributed without consensus (but often some ability | to see people break their contracts). Holo did come up. :) | | > _Maybe it's time to dig into the non-blockchain smart | contract idea that's been floating around for a while. Drop the | PoW and transaction fees, but maintain the trustless | verification and open data /code_ | | https://twitter.com/pfrazee/status/1462491070244208640 | | As for the 1000 years post being great- in general Avery | Pennarum is a world treasure. Great ability to surface ideas & | through & make situations legibile. Another very fine example. | The "state my assumptions" lead in is divine all on it's own. | pjkundert wrote: | One key observation leading to Holochain, is that the | systematic breaking of the assumptions of a "Smart Contract" | (the shared DNA code, in Holochain terms) is a valid form of | agreement. | | If some group wants to lie and pick each-others pockets: | well, OK, carry on. Just let me know about it, and not take | part in it. It's not the end of the world. | nouveaux wrote: | "There's another word for "require everyone else to agree": | Tyranny." | | I think this is often thrown out there to push back on liberals | and socialism but this is the wrong point. We as a global | society _need_ to agree to be productive. We need to work | together to find the best solutions for as many people as | possible. | | Everyone needs to agree that starting a nuclear war is bad. You | would likely want to stop China from shooting nuclear missiles | at San Francisco. Yet I doubt that when you insist on this | narrative, you would think of yourself as being tyrannical. | | One of the best observations about why people in urban areas | are more liberal, and rural areas are more conservative, has to | do with the idea that when you are around more people, you need | more rules to guide how to interact with one another. When you | live on your own 200 acre farm, you don't want someone to come | in and tell you what to do with your tree. When you live in a | 200 person apartment complex, you do care when your neighbors | are being loud at 2am. | | With technology, we are living closer and closer with each | other. I don't know how you are going to be productive without | consensus. | potatolicious wrote: | > I don't know how you are going to be productive without | consensus. | | At the risk of pedantry (but in this case I think warranted): | consensus literally means _every single person_ agrees. | | This is as opposed to something like democratic rule, where | rules can be made and enforced even if not every single | person involved agrees. | | I think OP is using the precise (non-colloquial) definition | of "consensus" and rightly points out how unworkable that is | as a governing principle. You can't get a small room of | people to agree on what's good for lunch, much less matters | of actual controversy. | | In a precisely-consensus-driven system you'd never be able to | shut your neighbor up at 2am, since definitionally at least | one person involved thinks the behavior is ok. | nouveaux wrote: | In order to prevent a nuclear war, you need consensus. | Anything less than 100% buy-in is insufficient. | | Going back to the neighbor example, someone being loud at | 2am is a lack of consensus. In order to be productive as a | group, you need consensus to be quiet when people are | sleeping. | pcthrowaway wrote: | Where do you get this definition? Wiktionary just talks | about widespread agreement, not unanimous agreement: | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consensus | | To be fair, I've heard it used (presumably) the same way, | but I understood this to be _a type of_ consensus that | relies on an agreement by all. | | From the wikipedia definition on consensus-based decision- | making: | | > The focus on establishing agreement of the supermajority | and avoiding unproductive opinion, differentiates consensus | from unanimity, which requires all participants to support | a decision. | int_19h wrote: | You can certainly get a small room of people to agree on | what's good for lunch, if the premise is that there's no | lunch at all until they agree on what to have. There will | be some compromising involved, so not everybody might get | the dish that is their first choice, but the more important | thing is that nobody gets something that they _hate_. | | That aside, consensus always has a particular domain of | applicability, and by decentralizing, you make that domain | smaller - and thus make consensus easier. Federation can be | used to replicate this process on as many layers as needed | for decentralized organization of larger societies. | generalizations wrote: | > Everyone needs to agree that starting a nuclear war is bad. | You would likely want to stop China from shooting nuclear | missiles at San Francisco. Yet I doubt that when you insist | on this narrative, you would think of yourself as being | tyrannical. | | Extreme examples work, because you can actually count on the | people reading your comment to agree with you. But you can't | extrapolate towards less universally held examples that you | happen to believe in; someone who requires everyone to agree | about what's done with trees on your own property could well | be considered tyrranical. | | > One of the best observations about why people in urban | areas are more liberal, and rural areas are more | conservative, has to do with the idea that when you are | around more people, you need more rules to guide how to | interact with one another. | | That's a cool observation that I'll keep in mind. However, in | my experience, it's not been the primary reason. Rather, it | has seemed to me that rural folks live closer to nature than | urban folks, and have often had firsthand experience that | mother nature tends to be nasty and brutish (or just check | out r/natureismetal). That's an experience which tends to | create what they would consider (IMHO) a much more pragmatic | idea of what it takes to survive in the world. | htek wrote: | >That's a cool observation that I'll keep in mind. However, | in my experience, it's not been the primary reason. Rather, | it has seemed to me that rural folks live closer to nature | than urban folks, and have often had firsthand experience | that mother nature tends to be nasty and brutish (or just | check out r/natureismetal). That's an experience which | tends to create what they would consider (IMHO) a much more | pragmatic idea of what it takes to survive in the world. | | My experience, having come from Appalachian stock and | escaping to New York City, is that urbanites are more open | to new experiences and ideas, they see different people and | slices of their culture all the time. They are more likely | to go to college, further increasing their experience of | new ideas. | | Rural folk are insulated from the world outside the area | they live in. They're mired in conservatism and the past. | They suffer from brain drain because most people, once | they've been exposed to fresh ideas and people via college, | tend to become more "worldly" and don't necessarily want to | return to their one stop sign town with its extremely | limited social life, culture, and job prospects. They often | never master their fear of the other, because they see | everyone who is not them AS the other. | stevetodd wrote: | I see it more as idealism vs pragmatism. We need both. I | think older people tend to be conservative because | they've become jaded by idealists and/or politics in | general. To many, conservatism is that government and | politics screw everything up, so we need less of it. | guntars wrote: | > Rather, it has seemed to me that rural folks live closer | to nature than urban folks, and have often had firsthand | experience that mother nature tends to be nasty and | brutish. | | That's an interesting interpretation. To me, what's more | nasty and brutish than a fellow man? I always thought the | divide was explained by how in the country everyone knows | everyone and have repeated interactions with the same | people. It's prisoners dilemma, but the game doesn't end. | Who needs rules when you can all punish somebody for an | offense (like being gay)? | generalizations wrote: | > Who needs rules when you can all punish somebody for an | offense (like being gay)? | | That's a...fairly prejudiced generalization you've made | there. | nouveaux wrote: | "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. | generalizations wrote: | > 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. | Frondo wrote: | Why is liability -- which can only kick in after some | damage has been done, possibly displacing someone from | their home -- a better solution than a process by which | dying/dead trees can be compelled to be removed? | | This sounds like the usual libertarian answer to things | like "eliminate government food safety inspection"; the | idea being that the market would eventually reflect that | some restaurants regularly sicken people and would then | go out of business. Why is it better to let people be | sickened, even if they can later sue, than put some stops | up on risky behavior in the first place? | | For both tree hazards and food safety, it's not a | surprise when something is risky, even if you can't | predict exactly when someone will have their house | smashed by a falling tree. Why wait for the damage to be | done? | georgewsinger wrote: | > Why is it better to let people be sickened, even if | they can later sue, than put some stops up on risky | behavior in the first place? | | Consequentialist reason: you don't put barriers and | friction in front of (e.g.) biotech and drug innovation. | See the pandemic for this (FDA has killed approximately a | million people alone by preventing covid vaccines from | being available in the market sooner). | | Deontological reason: you don't have the right to tell | people what they can and can't do with their own bodies | (w.r.t. products they want to consume, at their own risk, | etc). | | There's also regulatory capture, which reliably and | predictably occurs in mixed economies (see e.g. public | choice economics). | nouveaux wrote: | Liability is a good deterrent in many situations but is | far inferior to cooperation. Let's take an extreme | example: the death of a child by a irresponsible | corporation. Even with generous compensation, the family | will not be made whole with the loss of a child's life. | | Going back to the tree example, if a tree were to fall on | the house, even if all the repairs were paid for by the | tree owner, the loss in time and inconvenience will not | be offset. There is also the chance that something | personal is damaged and no amount of money can replace | it. It is better if the tree never falls on the house in | the first place. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | You're conflating Western leftism with liberalism. Wikipedia | defines liberalism as "a political and moral philosophy based | on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the | law." [1]. Liberals are interested in individual rights and | often are opposed to collectivist ideas such as those | espoused by state socialists. Your position on global | consensus is a more collectivist perspective, not necessarily | a liberal perspective. | | > We as a global society _need_ to agree to be productive. We | need to work together to find the best solutions for as many | people as possible. | | I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history, but the | process of forming a government is often _very difficult_. | Even forming governments in relatively small geographic areas | is difficult; Europe went through centuries of warfare before | it settled on its current set of governments. The aftermath | of colonialism has created terrible tensions in Africa and | the Middle East which is making it terribly difficult for | governments to form in those regions. | | What you're asking for, to agree on broad sets of things to | be productive, is essentially to form some form of limited | government across the world. We're not even close. The UN | routinely makes resolutions that are ignored by member | states. Many countries still oppose the UN's Universal | Declaration of Human Rights. I highly suggest you spend some | time reading about, and if possible or safe, traveling in | parts of the world with very different cultures than your own | (again if it's safe, which can be challenging for certain | demographics :( ). There's a lot of diversity in human | thought. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism | rkalla wrote: | I love your last sentence here - so well stated. | vorpalhex wrote: | > I think this is often thrown out there to push back on | liberals and socialism but this is the wrong point. We as a | global society _need_ to agree to be productive. | | And when someone tells you "no", how do you respond? | | You have three basic options: | | 1. Submit (but you can't submit to everyone saying no) | | 2. Take your toys and go home (but then your group will | forever shrink) | | 3. Force people to say yes | | The only good answer is (2) but that means some systems are | simply untenable if they require universal decentralization. | nouveaux wrote: | I agree. I dont think all systems require consensus and its | likely most things do not. When it comes to things that | optimizes for survival, it is likely we will need consensus | to be productive. | | Consensus only need to happen when we are close to one | another. Technology has the side effect of bringing us | closer together. | vorpalhex wrote: | I don't think technology has to bring us closer together. | | I agree with you that the current default state is | bringing everyone into the same sphere. I don't believe | that is actually what we want. | | I don't want to listen to every Bob's or Mary's political | opinion or outrage take. I'm happy debating with a small | group that has agreed upon rules (and excludes people who | don't follow those rules). Likewise, there are plenty of | political discussion groups that want to exclude me | because I don't agree with their rules. | | Technology should work to make small, discrete groups | able to form while ignoring physical proximity. | mistermann wrote: | 4. "How about we have a conversation, perhaps if we think | about it we can find a compromise that works out for both | of us?" Note also that such conversations can even be had | that don't involve the disagreeable party (if they're that | difficult), but if they are of high enough quality and | visibility (such that they can get public momentum) they | can change the person's mind based on them seeing which way | the wind is blowing. | | 5. Something neither of us have thought of. | vorpalhex wrote: | 4 is just 1. Compromise inherently involves both parties | giving something up. That only works for up to N parties. | You can't achieve stable compromise with everyone ever | because you have parties that are not rectifiable. | | You could also read 4 as an example of 3. If you are | going to force someone to say yes by social pressure or | threatening to burn down their house, that's still | authoritarian. | padobson wrote: | _Everyone needs to agree that starting a nuclear war is bad. | You would likely want to stop China from shooting nuclear | missiles at San Francisco. Yet I doubt that when you insist | on this narrative, you would think of yourself as being | tyrannical._ | | I disagree with the premise here. China doesn't need to agree | that shooting nukes at San Fran is bad, they just need to | agree that shooting nukes at San Fran is going to cost them | Shanghai. That's more like markets and prices than it is | appealing to a centralized hierarchy. | | _One of the best observations about why people in urban | areas are more liberal, and rural areas are more | conservative, has to do with the idea that when you are | around more people, you need more rules to guide how to | interact with one another._ | | This _might_ be true, but if you look at the state of LA, San | Fran, Chicago 's South Side, Detroit and Baltimore, it's | tough to say all those extra rules have kept them stable and | prosperous. I'm not saying the answer is necessarily "tear it | all down and go DeFi", but it's pretty clear that on a long | enough timeline, the regulation fails to punish the bad | actors and actually restricts the good actors from fixing | problems independently. | nouveaux wrote: | "That's more like markets and prices than it is appealing | to a centralized hierarchy." | | My thought process is more like a well regulated market | than it is a king of the world. A market requires | consensus. With your point about Shanghai, the consensus | here is that nuclear war will ensure mutual destruction. | | "it's pretty clear that on a long enough timeline, the | regulation fails to punish the bad actors and actually | restricts the good actors from fixing problems | independently. " | | Large cities have existed throughout history under all | sorts of governance and regulations and they continue to | thrive. The downfall of a city is more correlated with | economic perils than lawlessness. Even with all the crime | and homelessness in San Francisco, I'm willing to bet | anyone that for 2021, San Francisco will have one of the | highest GDPs per capita in the world. Urban centers will | continue to require consensus through governance to be | productive. | ahtihn wrote: | I've never seen anyone else define conservative vs liberals | like that. Conservatives aren't against rules, they are | against _changing_ rules. | | Why are conservatives against abortion, gay marriage and drug | legalisation if they don't want to be told what they can do | on their "own 200 acre farm". All those issues are about | enforcing a worldview on _others_. | nouveaux wrote: | This is the general perspective on conservatives and I | agree with the sentiment. If you extrapolate this out, | people who live happily in rural areas do not want someone | (government) to tell them about new changes. Small | government and less regulation is a big part of their | ethos. | | "All those issues are about enforcing a worldview on | others." | | This seems to apply to everyone involved. Liberals want to | impose their worldview on others just as much as | conservatives. I think that's ok. We all want to pursue | what is best. | DanHulton wrote: | The rules on abortion have been around for decades. | | Conservatives seemed pretty dead-set on changing them. | | Pretty sure it goes deeper than that. | pbourke wrote: | > Conservatives aren't against rules, they are against | changing rules. | | That doesn't ring true to me. Both liberals and | conservatives want to change and preserve rules according | to their viewpoints. | [deleted] | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Conservatives want to change rules to get back to their | view of what was good about the past. Liberals want to | change the rules according to their view of what should | be good about the future. | beebmam wrote: | "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to | wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but | does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds | but does not protect" | | https://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/12/frank-wilhoit- | the-tr... | Karrot_Kream wrote: | You need to broaden your view from American political | culture. Conservatives exist in many different types of | governments and many different cultures. This explanation | makes no sense. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | That is not the definition or description of | "conservativism". That is a strawman. | pjkundert wrote: | This seems like a bizarre definition. As someone who | would accept a label of "conservative", and growing up | and living in a world of mostly "conservative" people, I | struggle to think of a single such person who wouldn't be | appalled to find out they they were living under a | _single_ such law, let alone many such laws. | | Could you be so kind as to identify even a single | instance of such a law? | MaxfordAndSons wrote: | "The law" in gp's quote is not referring to codified | (abstract) laws, but rather their application in reality. | To wit: we refer to police officers as "the law" because | they represent, and wield, the law, and in the moment it | doesn't matter what the codes say, the living breathing | officer ("of the law") takes precedence. | handrous wrote: | It's possible to craft laws that don't explicitly fail to | bind one group, but do in practice. Other times, it's | more explicit. | | A recent example of the former would be some of the | voting security laws that have been popular lately. A | recent example of the latter would be disparities in | crack vs. cocaine sentencing (I think this is no longer | the case? God, I hope not. But was not that long ago) and | that's just the _de jure_ part--in all cases, the _de | facto_ enforcement is what matters. | | Historical examples abound, obviously. | | [EDIT] another example is mentioned by someone else in | this thread, as abortion laws, but it's worth noting | _why_ those are an example: the rich never have trouble | obtaining abortions, and there 's a history of pro-life | advocates doing so when they "need" to, for themselves or | for family members (I'm sure their case is different, of | course _eyeroll_ ). _In fact_ a major factor in the | _Republican_ legislature of New York passing early | abortion rights laws was precisely this disparity, which | was that anti-abortion laws _in effect_ only existed for | the poor. | wyre wrote: | Nearly any instance of a cop interacting with a black man | compared to interacting with a white man. | | The law isn't like to explicitly favor one group over | another, but the the systems of law have shown they do | favor one group over another. | zapataband1 wrote: | 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. | ModernMech wrote: | Reminds me of this: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/Sc | hwitzPapers/USAconsci... | pjkundert wrote: | I would argue that pretty much the opposite is true: I don't | know how we can be productive without _breaking_ consensus. | | All innovation comes from individuals or small groups going | _against_ the accepted dogma, and risking their own resources | and reputation to do something almost everyone else thinks is | _stupid_. | fortuna86 wrote: | > Disintermediation is always always always a myth. It only | means replacing a previous intermediary with another, | supposedly more deserving one. | | pic.twitter.com/jTM45MNas0 | chmod775 wrote: | Ignoring the first couple questionable true-isms, a lot of these | bullet points are just choices the author locked themselves into. | The author is painting a picture in which AWS is the internet, or | somehow representative of pricing. | | I don't have half of these problems. I have run services for | $6,000/year on bare metal servers that would have cost | $240,000/year on AWS at the time. | | Likely the author is _unwilling_ to make another compromise, | because they already weighed their options and arrived at these | which are the _least bad thing_ they could choose; or maybe they | just don 't even see there are other options. | AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: | replace AWS with <cloud provider> and every bullet point is | still True. | | Every website (the Internet) needs to be hosted. If not on a | cloud provider, you are going to have to host it yourself, | which is a ton of more work and more points of failure. For | cloud providers, point of failure occurs if you don't pay them. | When you are hosting yourself, there are tons of points of | failure (electricity, maintenance, etc.) | colechristensen wrote: | It's not really all that much more work. More like people who | don't know how to cook talking about how unreasonable making | dinner instead of ordering it would be. Honestly the biggest | benefit about the cloud is actually just hiding the details | of how much things cost so that management can't pinch | pennies when it comes to the fine grained cost of operating | tech and doesn't have to spend the time making reports about | it. | | There are plenty of hosting options out there that just | provide you with bare metal hardware and take care of the | lower level maintenance. | chmod775 wrote: | > replace AWS with <cloud provider> and every bullet point is | still True. | | No they're not. AWS is pretty much the most expensive, | sometimes by a factor of 10 or more - especially for egress | traffic. | | > For cloud providers, point of failure occurs if you don't | pay them. | | "It's in the cloud" doesn't mean you don't have to think | about reliability, redundancy, and backups. AWS, GCP etc all | had outages. | | All points of failure are exactly the same vs. buying bare- | metal. In the case of "the cloud" they're just partly managed | by other people. | | But yes, _as I said_ , there are choices with trade-offs. | Overall I'm unsure what you're trying to tell me with your | comment. Is your argument that _not_ choosing the cloud isn | 't really an option? I have _not chosen_ AWS for a decade and | saved a seven figure sum in the process (just for my private | projects - 500TB monthly egress alone already would be | expensive). | stdbrouw wrote: | It's worth considering whether the premise actually holds. | | * Yeah, there's a feeling of malaise, but if you look at e.g. | surveys of trust in government (Pew, OECD, etc.), it's a fairly | slow decline over decades and the end point is that most people | are still fairly okay with how government, education, media, the | judiciary etc. are run in many democratic countries and if you | look at overall happiness (Eurostat etc.) then that seems to be | fairly stable or even going up a little bit. | | * Most artists do get little reward for all the benefit they | provide, but we can't have everyone be artists so there has to be | _some_ way to disincentivize people from becoming an artist, no? | | * Big banks and big governments suck, fine, but compared to what | standard or compared to what point in time? | | * The gap between the haves and have-nots keeps widening. OK, | that one's probably true. | | * Software stacks keep getting more bloated, but in exchange | programming has gotten a lot easier, which seems like a wonderful | trade-off. | | * Governments like the European Union are absurdly complex, but | overall it seems to have been a net boon to the countries that | have joined it: travel is easier, paying is easier, your rights | as a consumer are better protected than ever, etc. | | * App Stores are pretty great for most people, even though 30% is | a bit absurd. | | * The Bay Area is not the world. | | There's probably a lot about modern society that needs solving, | but the first step has to be to think really long and hard about | precisely what does suck, why it sucks, whether it can be better. | colinmhayes wrote: | Yea I find it hard to believe there has ever been a better time | to be alive than now. Obviously we've got a long way to go, but | things have been continuously getting better overall, not | worse. | abbub wrote: | I mean...based on what? We have more stuff, that's for sure. | Our healthcare (when we can afford it) and nutrition is | probably better and more consistent. Are we any happier? I'm | not sure. | colinmhayes wrote: | https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty and | https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction | which show that the world population is getting wealtheir | and that is making them much happier. | IAmWorried wrote: | I honestly believe that if you remove social media from the | equation, there is zero doubt that modern life makes you | happier. There are so many awesome things you can do | nowadays with modern tech, you have practically unlimited | entertainment. But now you also have on-demand comparison, | and as they say, comparison is the thief of joy. The sooner | society realizes that social media is the REAL thing that | is making people unhappy, the better. | abbub wrote: | "...you have practically unlimited entertainment." | | This is a tangent, but I feel like I enjoyed things more | when I _didn 't_ have practically unlimited | entertainment. Video games before the digital era with | Xbox Game Pass, PSNow / PSPlus, etc were limited to a few | games that you bought and _really_ invested in. Videos | before streaming where you were limited to what was | sitting in Blockbuster or in your physical collection. | Music was limited to what the radio was playing (which | you had no control over) or what you had in your tape /CD | collection. Because physical media was something of an | investment, it sort of led to a sort of 'automatic | curation' that's much harder with having just about every | game, movie, tv show, and album at your fingertips. | | Maybe it's an age thing, but now I have 'back catalogs' | for all of this stuff, and there's a constant feeling of | 'missing out' if you choose one thing from your unlimited | supply over another thing. It's exhausting. | cblconfederate wrote: | > we can't have everyone be artists so there has to be some way | | Why not? The online attention economy is apparently worth | trillions , why shouldn't creators be rewarded? Attracting the | attention of other people is work even though it is all | captured by BigTech Inc. We have automated so much of the | workforce that it makes a lot of sense that being an 'artist' | should be a job that more and more people will do. | jspaetzel wrote: | All of this is just pessimistic complaining. Flip this and be | optimistic and you'll find life isn't all that bad. Think about | the last hundred years... | | * Rich people are still rich and poor people have access to more | food, medicine, and opportunity then any time in human history. | | * Families have and always should lookout for themselves first. | That's the way things work and should work. | | * Society is able to support more art then ever before. | | * We have computers... HOW are you complaining about one super | amazing piece of technology that didn't exist 5 years ago | compared to another piece of incredible technology. Seriously? Be | more amazed with how far this stuff has come in such a short | time. | | And like... We're not even in world war 3. Life is pretty good on | planet earth, idk where you've been but come on back down. | enraged_camel wrote: | >> * Rich people are still rich and poor people have access to | more food, medicine, and opportunity then any time in human | history. | | Back in the day slaves had to transport ice from mountains so | that the king could have his chilled wine every evening, | whereas today most people in the West have fridges at home. | | This does not mean that those who have fridges should just put | aside their feelings of malaise and adopt an optimistic | outlook, because at the end of the day that malaise is a result | of one's wealth and power relative to others who occupy the | same time and space. | klabb3 wrote: | Yep, agreed. For instance, you have more bandwidth and CPU | power today than in the 90s but the number of rent seekers | you and walled gardens you have to use are much bigger. So | the topology has changed. | neuronic wrote: | Yea live is good on Earth with a massive climate catastrophe | rolling in. But sure, the technocrats just believe some Silicon | Valley tech is gonna fix it. | jimsimmons wrote: | Than anytime in human history is such a dumb way to | characterize it. I mean, do we really expect the world to go | backwards? It has happened in the past for sure, but | regressions have not been a thing in the modern world for quite | a while. So "than anytime in human history" has, is and will | likely be true and that makes the characterization pointless. | moffkalast wrote: | Also "at least we're not in WW3, life is good!" is such a | crap argument I can't even. | | A guy writes a blog post on important issues to focus on and | what this guy comes up with is: "shut up, be happy". | cactus2093 wrote: | I think the author invited this though. Half the article is | a well thought out discussion of important problems. There | is some nuanced thinking about markets and capitalism that | addressed both the pros and cons. | | But the article started and ended with completely | unsupported claims about how the world is going to hell and | "we all feel it". | | The commenter you're responding to merely pointed out that, | no we don't all feel it, most people actually have things | very good these days. And that doesn't mean there aren't | still major issues that we should be working hard on. | encoderer wrote: | Well, we are living through one right now. Empty shelves and | stores that close early and restaurants out of business and | schools that are hardly teaching our kids. | thumbellina wrote: | Perhaps the continual raising awareness of problems is a key | part of progress. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | No, technical progress is key part of progress. Most | innovators are not driven by the constant complaints of other | people. | nfw2 wrote: | A lot of (most?) innovation is driven by problems that need | solving. It's a lot easier to start a company if there is | already a large audience that really wants a problem solved | and are willing to pay for the solution. | | Having an amazing novel idea and then convincing people not | having it in their life is a problem is way harder | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | Yes of course - problems, needs, not complaints. | nfw2 wrote: | what is the difference? isn't a complaint essentially | just stating that you have a problem | kazinator wrote: | "Complain" sometimes takes on the nuance of unproductive | whining (repeatedly bringing up problems that others in | the situation cannot fix), entitled attitude (why aren't | things such and such: everyone around me should | accommodate to me), excessive focus on minor things (I | hate this whole situation that I can't change, and I can | make that constantly known by harping on minor aspects) | and such. | philosopher1234 wrote: | complaining is talking about needs. i dont understand | your distinction | ignoramous wrote: | > _No, technical progress is key part of progress._ | | If nothing is rooted in people's / society's / community's | / government's wants and needs, then what incentives are | left for progress? | | > _Most innovators are not driven by the constant | complaints of other people._ | | I think you may be conflating inventors with innovators. | Inventors, like innovators, are a product of their time. | The leaps and bounds come from invention. And invention | follows _necessity_ , as an old saying goes. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | I wasn't talking about needs, I was talking about | complaints. | | Innovators/Inventors are driven by their needs, not by | other people's complaints. Unless they _need_ to stop | their spouses complaining or something like that. | birdyrooster wrote: | Complaints may be communicating needs, so if you remove | complaint then you stop the flow of communication about | needs. | long_time_gone wrote: | >Innovators/Inventors are driven by their needs, not by | other people's complaints. | | A need is the solution to a complaint, no? | teawrecks wrote: | So protesting is useless, and necessity is not the mother | of invention? | moffkalast wrote: | If you keep complaining about the lack of water though a | pipeline will eventually be built. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | No, if you collect money to pay for it it will be built. | Or if the inventors themselves want the water and build | it for themselves. | cblconfederate wrote: | If you don't recognize the problem i doubt you ll collect | any money for it | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | I didn't say anything about not recognizing problems. | teawrecks wrote: | You literally did. | birdyrooster wrote: | You did because you stated there is no utility in | communicating needs via complaint. I think you are | digging a hole and instead of realizing how deep you have | dug, you just keep going hoping to find yourself on the | winning side of this silly semantic debate. | philosopher1234 wrote: | You have never in your life been motivated to help | someone else with needs you didnt have? | joe_the_user wrote: | Some expectations are pessimistic, some are optimistic. | | Societies, over time, have gone up and gone down. So sometimes | an optimistic perspective has proven right and sometimes a | pessimistic perspective has proven right. | | The article has a decent argument why a pessimistic approach is | plausible. Your examples don't anything particular specific and | so they don't really give a case that an optimistic perspective | is appropriate. I mean, optimism might appropriate but "change | your view to see the good" is just kind of manipulative | (something very common now, a reason for pessimism, sadly). | klabb3 wrote: | Before antibiotics, birth control and ICEs there was germ | theory, virtuous celibacy and steam engines. Pointing out and | analyzing issues in the world is part of innovation. | maerF0x0 wrote: | > Families have and always should lookout for themselves first. | That's the way things work and should work. | | You're assuming this axiomatically, at first blush this is | simply nepotism which is typically a term w/ negative | connotations. | AutumnCurtain wrote: | It outright states meritocracy is wrong... | Lambdanaut wrote: | A minor point but | | > Okay, great. Now skip paying your AWS bill for a few months. | | If you ran your database locally and with multiple reundant power | sources, it wouldn't have this problem. | | That's of course a bad idea, however it shows it's not impossible | to do it without a single point of failure. | wffurr wrote: | Or skip paying your utility bill. Or your property tax. | | Maybe if you set up on an abandoned oil platform and called it | Freedomtopia, but that only lasts until your own money runs out | and your equipment breaks down. | micromacrofoot wrote: | or pirates, of course... there are always pirates | strange_things wrote: | Mods, please ban me. I can't stop checking this site but it keeps | disappointing me. please just ban me | verisimi wrote: | "We are not doing the rework. We are chasing rainbows. We don't | need deregulation. We need better designed regulation." | | Really enjoyable article, and I love the way the author uses his | networking experience to inform his understanding of the world. | | The issue or possibility that the author misses, IMO, is that the | lack or rework and general degradation, etc is BY DESIGN. The | fail is coming and that is planned for. | | I personally think that there are a parasitic elite, that harvest | the energy and wealth from countries and situations, and have | done so for centuries. We think in terms of months and years, but | they think in terms of centuries. Eg Technocracy Inc was formed | in the 1930s and even shared the same building as IBM. | | The overarching idea here, is that Western society crashes | somewhat, the lead is passed to China, and in reverse, we import | their totalitarian infrastructure. We will be monitored | everywhere, our governments will go, but (UN) technocrats will | step in to micromanage our lives (water use, electricity use, | travel, etc). The trick is to make us want that. And things will | get so bad, that most of us will! | | And that is the reason that we have ready excuses - such as | never-ending viral or climate events, that somehow convince us to | hand over authority in just the way that technocrats have always | dreamed of, for example with bio-ids being required to do one's | shopping or travel. | wilkommen wrote: | I agree with everything in the blog post. I just think it's | really hard for societies to "unfuck" themselves. I think the | reason things are going in this direction is because of an | increasing concentration of power among a relatively small number | of people. It's hard to walk back that kind of concentration of | power without societal upheaval. The only reason the gilded age | in the United States ended was because of WW2 and the widespread | notion that the common American deserved to share in the post-war | prosperity (that they had earned by fighting a world war!). That | idea was so popular and widespread that it actually happened. But | it took a World War to get to that point. I hope something will | happen to walk back the concentration of power that has | accumulated over the last 50 years or so, but my feeble mind | can't quite imagine what that thing will be. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | The Gilded Age was generally regarded to have ended about 1900. | If you mean the term more broadly and less generally, it still | ended in 1929, with the Depression, not with the war. | wilkommen wrote: | You're right, my error. | jq-r wrote: | You've answered your own question. It is going to be a war. | | War is a great mallet which destroys most of the power | structures and shuffles the cards a bit. But the price to pay | is atrociously high. After the war everyone will swear "Never | again!", but their children's children have no idea what that | means, and have no problem going to war all over again. | wilkommen wrote: | Yeah I guess. I hope not. I wonder throughout history, has | there ever been a "ruling class" which starts to see that | unless they cede a significant amount of power, there will be | a war, and they will lose it, and thus they proactively | decide to cede a sufficient amount of said power? I guess | that's more or less the dream scenario. Cause then things get | a lot better _without_ a war. But they wouldn 't even let | Bernie Sanders get elected president. So it seems like we're | pretty far off from such a scenario. | NotSammyHagar wrote: | Bernie lost because he got less votes and supports in the | primary, twice. "Dem party leaders" were against him but | the voters decided. My vote in the primary went to him, but | it wasn't "secret them" who stopped him, it was voters. | "Many party leaders" were against Trump but he won the | first time bc he got more votes. | leafmeal wrote: | Britain's move to representative democracy from a monarchy | is somewhat of an example, although one could argue that | power is still concentrated. | s7r wrote: | When I read this piece, I feel like a lot of these behaviors | come back to rent-seeking. Here's a perspective on ways we | might be able to transcend rent-seeking, to different ways of | work: | | https://rebrand.ly/end-of-rent | | Jel imate neki contakt? Nisam Hrvat, ali tu sam u tvoj zemlju | -- mozda mozemo se naci? Tu imas moj informacije: | https://github.com/sbutler-gh | treespace8 wrote: | I feel that nuclear weapons have made modern global war | impossible. Because the powerful would not be able to escape | the effects of such a conflict. | | So for the first time we must now work out our differences | without war. This can't be a bad thing. | IAmWorried wrote: | I think that the elites of the various countries have too | much in common at this point to allow a war to happen. They | would sooner team up and move to Elysium and abandon all the | rest of us on earth than allow for global destruction. I | think this is the future TBH, the wealthy will more and more | take things into their own hands a la superyachts, NZ | properties, fortified compounds, etc. The middle classes and | below will face the unwelcome prospect of gradually decaying | social institutions and economies until society eventually | just breaks, and the wealthy wait it out then come in to | sweep up the ashes, ushering in a new, far less populated | golden age of humanity. | wilkommen wrote: | This possible outcome has occurred to me before, but it's | hard to imagine a breaking of society which doesn't include | the hunting-down of at least some of the rich. I don't know | how they could truly escape the downfall. | Avernar wrote: | "Everyone seems to increasingly be in it for themselves, not for | society." | | As human beings, we have an underlying need for belonging and | connection. All of us are by default programmed to be connected | to our own interests. For many that circle broadens to their | friends and family and for a few that broadens to their immediate | community. Fewer still feel connected to their country and only | some of us will feel connected to the world. | awinter-py wrote: | > The major rework we need isn't some math theory, some kind of | Paxos for Capitalism, or Paxos for Government | | the part time parliament | https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/lamport-paxos.pdf (lamport | 98) | spyckie2 wrote: | I think the US doesn't understand this enough: Mature capitalism | IS socialism (democratic socialism, as seen in European | countries). | | Mature capitalism is not what we have today. What we have today | is capitalism that has not been allowed to evolve to its natural | state. | | It's been recorded many times in history that in the late stages | of a mature economy, wealth is accumulated by landowners / elite | / nobles / ruling class / billionaires / whatever you want to | call it this iteration. | | It's also known that as markets mature and competition becomes | fiercer, it gets harder and harder to participate in it. In 1910, | I could be a basketball player because the competition was that | low. Now if I wanted to, I would not even make the tryouts. Apply | this to every mature industry, which most all of them are | (consolidated, hyper competitive, and dominated by a few | players). The skill to participate in them has to be greater, | which means that more and more people not gifted to be 2-3 | standard deviations above the mean are left out. | | Socialism is the natural, expected evolution of capitalism to | maintain a high functioning society. It says, we ADMIT the above | two things are happening (wealth is accumulated by the rich, poor | people are left hanging). It also says, we KNOW that this is | wrong, both morally as all human beings should be cared for under | modern society, and societally, as if there are too many unhappy | people (consumers in this iteration), it will up-end society as | we know it (riots and revolts). | | Capitalism is the growth spurt of a healthy country, but | socialism is the adult stage. | thegrimmest wrote: | > _as all human beings should be cared for under modern | society_ | | Why on earth would you conclude that? What's wrong with | Darwinian processes? Why must people be protected from the cost | of their own misfortune, failure or inadequacy? Why must this | cost be born by others? | germinalphrase wrote: | He clearly indicated that he believes it leads to societal | instability, violence, and collapse. | thegrimmest wrote: | Basically that people cannot be expected to accept their | own fates with dignity? I would make the case that | overwhelming violence is an appropriate consequence for | violating the peace. Good policing techniques are very | effective in maintaining social order, in spite of economic | inequality - see Japan. | germinalphrase wrote: | Is the history of revolutions/social collapse really | marked by despots, dictators and royalty _not_ using | overwhelming force? | thegrimmest wrote: | Most recent revolutions and social collapses have been | marked by the idea that we should seize property from | some and redistribute it to others. | pessimizer wrote: | Why do you think the only weak people that deserve | protection are the wealthy? The idea that the only | legitimate function of government is to protect the | status quo is strange, and in a world where everything is | assigned an owner is a _maxarchism_ not a minarchism. | | In a real Darwinian world, rich people wouldn't be able | to walk the streets without a huge amount of security, | and eventually that security force would kill them, take | what they have, and pass it to their children. The idea | that the people who own everything are the intellectual | and physical champions of the world is a version of the | efficient market hypothesis within a idealized police | state whose only duty is to keep these people from | falling to their level. It's really just a neofeudalism | that will result in neohapsburg lips in 100 years and | infant kings. | thegrimmest wrote: | I'm saying that "society" is basically an agreement to | peacefully coexist, using due process to resolve | disputes. It's not an agreement to cooperate. Just | because the processes by which some some succeed and some | fail are non-violent doesn't mean that those successes | and failures shouldn't be total. | | > _people who own everything are the intellectual and | physical champions_ | | They're not, and I never said they were. All I said was | that if they acquired their wealth through legitimate | means (ie without the use of force), then they are | _entitled_ to keep _all of it_ and do with it what they | please. | | Say we live in a society with 10 people, each with one | dollar. Now say one member of this society invents | something useful and sells it to the other nine for 75C/. | The wealth gap in this society will have grown | dramatically. What exactly entitles the other nine to any | of their money back? What does it matter how the | entrepreneur spends his money? | stnikolauswagne wrote: | > What does it matter how the entrepreneur spends his | money? | | Lets take your scenario one step further. The | entrepreneur now uses his newly gotten weatlh, buys up | some neccessary infrastructure that everyone relies on | (for sake of argument lets the food supply) and raises | the price to 26ct, everyone in the society but him | starves to death and no violence was used. At what point, | if any, should a hypothetical state step in? | thegrimmest wrote: | Nowhere? If you sell your only milk-giving cow, don't be | surprised if the prices of milk increases. You're using | "buys up" like the people selling had no choice. They | have plenty of choices: they can refuse to sell, they can | refuse to cooperate with the new owner, they can go and | build new infrastructure. Ultimately, a property owner is | not a monarch, and can't force anyone to do anything. | These techniques have been used in to remarkable effect | in the past to peacefully compel good behavior. See | Charles Cunningham Boycott or Mahatma Gandhi. | pjkundert wrote: | Only in the "No True Scotsman" definition of Socialism. | | Because making everyone else to do what you want (eg. give | something that _they have_ to someone who _you deem_ deserves | it more) will always require force. | | So, decide right now: how _much_ force are you willing to | apply? | | The answer will have to be sufficient force to ensure they | yield: lethal force. | pietrovismara wrote: | Or use subtle force, like it is done today in capitalism. You | just need to leave people with no choices. | | Pay the rent, or you and your family end up on the streets. | Pay your insurance, or you will be left to bleed out and die. | You have no other choice but to take any job, no matter how | bad it may be. | | Then foster a culture that gives everyone the hope that they | also have a chance to get a good life, but only on the | condition that they must only think for themselves and | compete with the other poor to ascend the social pyramid. | That's meritocracy. | | This is how the rich (the capitalist ruling class) gets | everyone else to do what they want, which is to trickle up | enormous amounts of value from everyone to a handful of | people. | | Then if we want to talk about lethal force, capitalists used | overwhelming amounts of it troughout recent history, in order | to preserve the status quo that advantages them. It's not a | secret and it just takes some honest study to know it. | DFHippie wrote: | The problem with this interminable argument about government | and force is that it implicitly involves unreasonable people. | | What allows the government to collect taxes? Lethal force! | | But also... | | What keeps people from driving on the wrong side of the road? | Lethal force! What keeps people from dining and dashing? | Lethal force! What keeps from using park benches as toilets? | Lethal force! | | For the most part people are reasonable and if you indicate | that they need to do something or refrain from doing | something, they go along. If they don't, you can write a law | with some enforcement mechanism, and then they go along. If | they still don't, you can increase the bite of the | enforcement mechanism. Rarely do you have Bartleby the | Scrivener types who simply refuse to cooperate, and even | then, the consequence for them, like for Bartleby, is | generally fines or time in state custody, not lethal force. | | The government, through its agents, often does employ lethal | force with tragic consequences, but this is usually the | result of the agents enforcing their own special laws -- | respect my authority or I will kill you -- not the actual | laws and their legal enforcement mechanisms. Many nations | have no death penalty. Many have police officers who vary | rarely kill their citizens. These nations are often very nice | countries to live in. | micromacrofoot wrote: | How is this different than getting everyone to adhere to | capitalism or democracy? Lots of people die under this | system, doing things they do not want to do. | pjkundert wrote: | Good question! | | As with most choices, the level of force required to | achieve compliance is more or less linearly related to the | harshness of the choice. | | Pay a small amount of taxes? Little force required. | | Give full authority over your life to a faceless central | planner? Great force required. | | Give full authority, with no chance of escape? Lethal force | required. | | I'm not sure why this is a concept that seems to be a | mystery to advocates of "Socialism", though. | | "Socialism would work _great_ , if only you pesky rich, | free people would just give up and let the state take | everything and let your children starve!" | | :) | micromacrofoot wrote: | I'm not a strong proponent of socialism, but this seems | like an outrageously loaded response to a genuine | question. | pjkundert wrote: | It was a genuine answer. | | Is force not linearly related to the gravity / | undesirability of the mandate? | | Are increasingly draconian mandates not rebuffed by more | and more people? | | Are there not plentiful examples of "Socialist" societies | attempting to enforce more and harsher mandates, against | anyone not willing to "give their fair share"? | | If people are allowed to leave such systems for ones more | to their liking, do they not flee, unless forced not to? | | If those who don't "give their fair share" try to leave | and are forced to stay, and staying means that they or | their children may die, will they not fight to the death | to escape? | micromacrofoot wrote: | >Are there not plentiful examples of "Socialist" | societies attempting to enforce more and harsher | mandates, against anyone not willing to "give their fair | share"? | | You mean like if you don't pay taxes you go to jail? or | if you don't work you live on the street? | | There are certainly harsher places to be, but the US is | not friendly to people who do not "give their fair | share." It's already mandatory. | pjkundert wrote: | And, most people are fine with it, and those that aren't | are completely free to leave and pursue their lives | somewhere with "better" rules. | | I think we're agreeing; perhaps I'm mistaken? | micromacrofoot wrote: | I guess, but "completely free to leave" is a bit of an | illusion... it's not at all easy to do so, and even if | you do... you still owe taxes until you renounce | citizenship. | | I also don't really see barring people from leaving as an | inherent requirement to socialism, if that's what you | were saying. | Miner49er wrote: | What does socialism mean to you, because it seems to me that | you aren't talking about the same socialism I'm thinking of | (social ownership of the means of production). It sounds like | you are talking about the opposite of that (tyrannical control | of the means of production). | spyckie2 wrote: | I meant the democratic socialism of many European | governments. | pessimizer wrote: | This is an orthodox Marxist view that wasn't borne out by | history. There was the objection that was foreseen: that | socialism in one country was impossible because capitalism in | other countries would just destroy it. There was also the one | that wasn't: the ability of domestic capitalists to collaborate | and collectively give concessions when society seemed as if it | were about to upend, then to withdraw those concessions as the | crisis died down and gradually replace them with violence. | | There's no inevitable historical process that results in | utopia. Nominal "socialisms" tend to combine the political | outlook of Trotskyist Marxist-Leninism with the Whig history of | liberalism, resulting in the worst of both worlds; the belief | that 1) all answers have already been discovered, and 2) that | they will inevitably be implemented as _the people_ recognize | these answers to be truths and decide that in the world of | technologically provided abundance created by capitalism, there | 's no reason to wait. | | They believed that the ultimate expression of _history_ is | democratic socialism, and that capitalism is a necessary step | to get to there from feudalism. To believe that democratic | socialism is the ultimate expression of capitalism itself is | very strange - capitalism has no moral center that needs to be | expressed. It 's a physics metaphor that believes that the | greater good can be emergent without a moral center. | | Democratic Socialism, as seen in European countries, is a | system granted and implemented by the US after the devastation | of WWII, intended to keep them out of the Soviet orbit. It was | funded by the intense military expenses of the US which allowed | Europe to ignore military expenditure (for social expenditure), | and regulated in the beginning through intense covert | operations in Europe using the stick of assassinations to break | up parties and eliminate influential people ambivalent about or | friendly towards the Soviets, and the carrot of employing well- | known socialist intellectuals through unprofitable foundations | and public expenditures on their weirdest art and expressions | as counter-programming to a Nazi-redolent (i.e. degenerate art) | Socialist Realism and Stalin's hatred of modernism. | | European democratic socialism was a strategy of capitalism to | suppress change, not to encourage it. | zackmorris wrote: | I've been thinking a lot lately about first principles. For | example, the Golden Rule is great, but the concept of | reincarnation transcends it, making it self-evident. The Book of | Genesis probably started "in a beginning", not "in the | beginning". And so on. | | When I look around at the state of the world today, it just makes | me so tired. Everyone's running around on autopilot and not | questioning the basic assumptions. It's just more more! now now! | to survive. So adamant in their certainty that they've all but | forgotten why we're all here to fail and learn and grow as human | beings and find kindred spirits. | | To me, what's wrong with the world is that people are ok with | being wealthy. They're ok with rising to positions of power and | then denying empowerment to others. They're ok with the law not | being applied equally and fairly to everyone. | | They haven't realized that inequity affects themselves in another | life, that violence against others hurts themselves, that | destroying the planet this century leaves no planet for their | next life. | | I can't prove any of this, but I know it's true, because I'm here | now, just like you. | syndacks wrote: | You had me except for the reincarnation/another life bit. | Bedsides scripture, is there any evidence of this in science? | I'm asking genuinely here. | _moof wrote: | I read it as taking a spiritual route to arrive at something | like original position, which you can certainly get to by | more secular means. (Rawls did, after all.) | padobson wrote: | I'd ask you to check your basic assumption about science as | an authority. | | Science is really good at transmitting information about | deterministic processes, but is really bad at transmitting | information about non-deterministic processes or even | processes that are so complex that they appear non- | deterministic e.g. human behavior. | | I don't believe in reincarnation, but it's not hard at all | for me to see how it can be used as a moral tool that helps | people think long term. It's not a bad idea to use tools like | this, especially since all attempts so far to design a | "science of morality" have been bloody, catastrophic | failures. | efdee wrote: | > I don't believe in reincarnation, but it's not hard at | all for me to see how it can be used as a moral tool that | helps people think long term. | | I find this highly offensive. The people must be lied to so | they can do the thing that's best for them, because they | can't come to this conclusion in a way that doesn't involve | lieing. | CapmCrackaWaka wrote: | > I don't believe in reincarnation, but it's not hard at | all for me to see how it can be used as a moral tool that | helps people think long term. | | At first glance things like this can sound good. However, | religious ideologies like this are always double edged | swords. In India, their caste system is heavily reinforced | by the believe that people in a lower caste were "bad | people" in a past life, and so there are no reservations | about subjugating or otherwise discriminating against them. | | This _always_ tends to happen to _every_ spiritual law | scheme eventually, under different cultures. If a religion | has enough followers, people have used its (seemingly good | natured) ideology to kill and discriminate against those | they don't like. This is the nature of humanity, I doubt | there is any possible spiritual teachings that wouldn't | eventually fall into this trap. | IIAOPSW wrote: | Your causation is backwards. People who feel like | discriminating find a rationalization for their beliefs | post hoc. Yes religious ideologies have been used to | justify racism, but so to has there been "scientific | racism" with with all its babbling on about skull sizes. | If it weren't science or religion then it would be | something else. The underlying issue is some people are | bastards. | tinco wrote: | > I'd ask you to check your basic assumption about science | as an authority. | | Science is the only and ultimate final authority. It really | is not a bad assumption. There literally can not be a | higher authority than it by definition. | | > but is really bad at transmitting information about non- | deterministic processes or even processes that are so | complex that they appear non-deterministic e.g. human | behavior. | | No it is not, science functions perfectly fine for complex | processes. We can describe and draw actionable conclusions | from the behaviours of fluids and gases even though they | are made up of inconceivably complex interactions of | billions of quantum effects. | | We could easily model most of human behaviour if we really | wanted to. It is just that it is unethical to do so, so we | refrain from it. We make do with observing humans in the | wild, and the observations we make sometimes have enough | significance to make weak statements about human | behaviours. | | If the belief in reincarnation could be used as a moral | tool to help people think long term, that should be | scientifically demonstrable if it's true. It would be a | hard ethical argument though, as you're basically trading a | persons ability to make correct judgements of their own | safety and well-being for a larger "long term" better | functioning society. Not saying it's definitely wrong, but | it better lead to a much better world for it to be worth | it. | CTmystery wrote: | > Science is the only and ultimate final authority | | Junk science led to the American eugenics movement that | included forced sterilization of 64k Americans in the | early 1900s. | | I love science, but calling it the only and ultimate | authoritity leaves a lot of room to create a world we | don't want to live in. This happens because scientists | disagree themselves on almost everything. Recognizing the | difference in science as an ideal versus science put in | practice makes me not want to agree with your statement. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Utilizing data to continuous refine one's model of the | world is the ultimate final authority. | | Some people call it science, some call it the scientific | method, etc. | mistermann wrote: | And some other people call it delusion, hubris, flawed | epistemology, ironic, etc. | CTmystery wrote: | Sure, it's a great method for understanding causal | relationships in the world. It's also a method that | humans invented, and it's not proven that some future | invented method could not provide as much insight into | the world as the scientific method. Calling it the | ultimate authority and saying that "here literally can | not be a higher authority than it by definition" is hard | to defend IMO. Science gets its authority from consensus, | right now we all agree that science should be granted | authority! But it is clearly lacking as an all | encompassing tool for understanding: How does the | scientific method teach morality? It's not clear that it | even can. | tinco wrote: | That it's the ultimate authority doesn't mean you should | always believe it. It's just the best we've got. It's the | best thing about science is that it's explicit about the | bounds of what we know and don't know. | | You don't ask a scientist what you should do, you ask a | scientist what they think is true, and what the options | are and what their estimated outcomes are. It's always | you yourself who make the decision. | | Regardless if there was junk science in the early 1900s | (don't know much about it but wouldn't be surprised), it | was people who decided to sterilize people. Just as it's | people who decide to kill people for Jesus Christ or | Allah or whatever excuse they come up with. | | Even if the science were true, and some subset of | Americans is less intelligent or more violent or | whatever, it still wouldn't change the fact that now | we've decided that eugenics is unethical. We embrace | diversity because that's what aligns to our values. Maybe | if we're in the middle of famine and war our values will | shift again. The authority of science has nothing to do | with it. | CTmystery wrote: | Perhaps we disagree on the definition of 'the authority | of science'. Also FWIW I am not at all religious, in case | you think I'm trying to restore scripture to it's | rightful place of authority over science. I am just | intrigued by this statement that science is the ultimate | authority by definition, and that nothing could ever | supplant it. | kazinator wrote: | The content of science, the body of knowledge, by | definition, not supposed to be based on authority. | Authority means that exactly the same counterfactual | statement is considered either right or wrong based on | whether the speaker of that statement has authority. | | Science is currently not ultimate or final because is it | is changing. For science to be ultimate and final, it | would mean that tomorrow's science is the same as today's | science. Nothing new or different can follow that which | is ultimate. | | However, we need to assert social authority in order to | defend a discourse against the fallacies like "argument | from authority" or other unproductive disruptions. | padobson wrote: | _Science is the only and ultimate final authority._ | | Indeed, praise be to science. | | _It really is not a bad assumption._ | | More like a leap of faith. | | _There literally can not be a higher authority than it | by definition._ | | How [onto]logical. | | _It is just that it is unethical to do so, so we refrain | from it._ | | Amen, brother. We've got to repress those urges of | curiosity to appease glorious science. Praise be to | science! Amen. | tinco wrote: | 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 behaving as a | cohesive unit, then maybe you'd understand. | CTmystery wrote: | 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? | thanatos519 wrote: | There isn't any scientific explanation for "incarnation", let | alone "reincarnation". There is still no explanation for how | a chemical reaction controlled by persuasive spirals results | in "experience", is there? | | Anyways: I accept Kant's argument for the evaluation of | philosophical maxims ... | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative "Act | only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same | time, will that it should become a universal law." | | ... and it seems that one can adopt any maxim as guidance for | one's behaviour, so I choose to take as a maxim: There is | only one "subject" of reality, and that subject seems to be | experiencing itself via this particular meatsack known as | "me". Anything "I" can do to improve that experience via | another meatsack known as "somebody else" is worth doing, | because it is the very same "subject" experiencing that act. | "Karma" means "action", because any action taken is | experienced through another be-ing. | | The truth of this is irrelevant, in the "will that it should | become a universal law" sense: if everyone acted in this way, | seeing each and every being as another aspect of their self, | then we surely would all have fewer problems. That's how the | categorial imperative applies. | | To resort to argument by authority, there's always this: | | "The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a | way for the universe to know itself." -- Carl Sagan | | I don't always (or even most of the time) follow this, | because I'm not sure that the "universal law" makes sense | when surrounded by self-centred automatons, so I resort to an | even higher authority, Douglas Adams: | | Slartibartfast: Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that | the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so | absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang | the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be | happy than right any day. | | Arthur Dent: And are you? | | Slartibartfast: Ah, no. Well, that's where it all falls down, | of course. | deathcalibur wrote: | There's not even evidence for reincarnation "on Earth" in the | Bible anyways so not sure what the OP is going on about. | | I do think it is a useful exercise to imagine yourself in the | future though. It's much easier when you have children to be | connected to the future. | ppqqrr wrote: | I'm aware that it's pretty whack, but my pet argument for | reincarnation is this: you used not not exist. Then, at some | point in time, you transitioned into existing. When you die, | you'll go back to not existing again (if that's what you | believe). If reincarnation is just a matter of coming into | being from non-existence, then the fact that you exist is an | evidence that it's possible. Obviously there's many holes in | this argument (to start with, is every incarnation a | probabilistically independent event?), but hey, what good's | freedom of religion if you can't make up your own mind about | things you can't possibly know right? | leafmeal wrote: | No, there's no evidence in science of reincarnation or an | afterlife. | kleer001 wrote: | > people are ok with being wealthy. | | Yup. 100%. I doubt you'll find an organism on Earth that's not | ok with having access to more resources than it needs. | | Can you describe an environment where this wouldn't occur? What | would happen if an organism in that environment was able to | hoard resources? | | Sounds like you might want to also consider as well the | iterative prisoners dilemma and the tragedy of the commons with | respect to the evolution of groups and cultures (meta groups). | criddell wrote: | > they've all but forgotten why we're all here to fail and | learn and grow as human beings and find kindred spirits | | Speaking of first principles... | | Do you really believe that there's a purposeful reason why we | are all here, or is that something you choose to live your life | by? | k__ wrote: | Every time I questioned basic assumptions, my life got better. | Not suddendly, but in the long run. | moffkalast wrote: | Interesting, I just got more depressed every time. | suriyaG wrote: | I like to think of it as a dark tunnel with light at the | end. Helps me bear with the depression. But somedays it | just feels imposssible to see the light, I gotta agree. | moffkalast wrote: | Ah I know this one! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7pX0 | iAKGzs&list=PLFE1QOlYmt... | k__ wrote: | How come? | qez wrote: | The author seems to be confusing distributed systems with market | systems. Cloud services are a market system, but it isn't | distributed... it's all in central servers. The technologies that | are "simply never going to be able to achieve their goals" are | trying to be market systems _and_ distributed systems. | thegrimmest wrote: | Falling somewhat into the category of a libertarian, I | fundamentally disagree that "all useful discourse terminates | forevermore". My issue is with the _presupposition_ that it 's OK | to force people to cooperate effectively. All of the named | problems are there basically because people aren't interested in | solving them voluntarily. It _absolutely does not follow_ that | therefore it 's okay to use force. | | The hubris required to decide that you know better than others | how they should live their lives, and your ends justify the | means, always astounds me. Treating people as components in a | system, to be regulated and managed, is in opposition to treating | them as beings with agency, entitled to choose how and when to | engage with others. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | I dunno, sorta seems like trying to solve rentier capitalism from | the tech side isn't really going to work. | jedberg wrote: | > IT security has become literally impossible: if you install all | the patches, you get SolarWinds-style supply chain malware | delivered to you automatically. If you don't install the patches, | well, that's worse. Either way, enjoy your ransomware. | | I feel this one. Having worked in security in the past, even I | often feel overwhelmed keeping my own security going. I use the | best defense in depth that I can, but I know that's not enough. | ralston3 wrote: | To me, this reads as "If we, as a society become better people, | we don't need other solutions to address how not great of people | we are". In other news, water is wet. | | I feel as if the author seems to somewhat misunderstand the | relationship between those who have less and those who have more. | There's a fundamental lack of trust (which really erupted in | 2008) that kicked off this whole crypto/web3 thing. | | We tried the "trusting people" route and it didn't work. The | incentives are just too misaligned for "trust" to ever work (in | my opinion). So, techies basically said "Fu$k it, I'll build my | own system to do what you (those who have more) _should_ be | doing". | | This articles seems to say that we don't need all these complex | solutions to problems that can fundamentally be solved by | just...being better people? But that has never, and will never | happen. We all wish we lived in a perfect world where everyone | does the right thing - but that is just not the reality we live | in. So these "decentralized/distributed systems" (e.g., Bitcoin) | are our way of removing the human component from the equation. | wolverine876 wrote: | Like many people, much of the OP implicitly accepts as its | premise the philosophies that create this problem. When you do | that, the battle and debate are already over. The assumptions | determine the outcome. | | Many of those philosophies espouse hopelessness and despair. | Making your enemy despair is a transparent and brazenly obvious | tactic, and fundamental psyops. You are giving away your power, | which is considerable, for nothing. The nutcases are vastly | outnumbered. Why are people so stupid as to not see that, and to | buy into it? Are you kidding me? | | Another thing I've long believed is the disparagement of | humanities and 'post-modernism' is disarmament. These are the | tools that will win, not more algorithms. The bad guys embrace | and use those tools, disparaging them all the while, and most | people I know again implicitly accept that and unilaterally | disarm themselves. Brilliant! | | Why does everyone do this stupid sh-t? IMHO: The pressure of | social norms. Look at the widespread use of contempt, for example | - a great tool for enforcing social norms, and but which serves | no rational, productive purpose. Open-mindedness, humility, | respect, and reason are the productive tools - but I can sense | the contempt coming for mentioning those things | | Some examples: | | > Or, people who are in it for society tend to lose or to get | screwed until they give up. | | We've made cowardice a social norm. If you think the situation is | serious, 'giving up' because you are tired or due to social | pressure is very weak. People regularly have risked their | freedom, lives, fortunes, and honor (reputation) for to give us | what we have, generation after generation. We are the stewards | and leaders now; what will we give the next generation, or will | we just be parasites and throw it all away. Nothing we face is | worse than prior generations - if you think it's tough now, | imagine advocating for women's rights, for example, facing | millennia of history and widespread reactionary outrage; success | didn't look assured at all. | | > Big banks and big governments really do nonspecifically just | suck a lot. | | Democracy is the tool, the place everyone gets a vote regardless | of their wealth, status, power. By despairing, you again abandon | the field of battle to the other side, which certainly has not | despaired. It's incredible to watch people surrender | unilaterally, for no reason, other than telling each other to | despair. | blobbers wrote: | Sounds like this is a generalization that the "don't be evil" | motto slowly disappears and turns into "get money". | | I get it, I worked at a company like that. It started out as | connecting everyone to the internet for free, and turned into | connecting the wealthy so they could be more efficient. The | wealthy tend to pay more than the poor. | | Altruism is unfortunately a poor motivator in capitalism. | | Perhaps we need to write out the tenets of western society to | determine if the system trends in the right direction and | determine which amendments need to be created in order for it to | bend towards good. | | Switching from a capitalist society to an altruistic society. | seaourfreed wrote: | Watch the corruption in Wall Street, Congress (w/Lobbyists) and | the Establishment: | | * First Wall Street used modern tech in 1980s and 1990s to make | better markets | | * BUT then corruption happened when Wall Street maxed out making | money from tech in efficient markets. They then shifted to taking | money via a rigged economy. | | * Wall Street rigged economy is shown by high frequency firms | front running trades (at least claimed and maybe proven in Flash | Boys book) | | * 2008 Mortgage Crisis shows Wall Street rigging the economy | | * $3.5 billion per year flowing through lobbyists successfully | causes congress to sell out. | | * The economy has been rigged for the last 30+ years | | * At least bitcoin and crypto are enabling those abused by a | rigged economy to create competitors | | * Creating a "bank account" has been blocked from entrepreneurs | for 40 years. Crypto at least enables businesses to be created | with crypto-bank-account equivalents, transfers, and financial | transactions. | | The establishment is the root of the problem. Entrepreneurship by | good ethical people competing and winning must be a strategic | part of the solution. | randallsquared wrote: | This whole essay boils down to "This time, for sure!" | WriterGuy2021 wrote: | Freedom is slavery... | | We're not all in the same boat. If you want to change the system, | you're going to have to fight the people invested in the status | quo. Most people aren't interested in the "greater good," even | though they may maintain this position publicly because it is | considered antisocial to openly say "f** the plebs," but actions | speak louder than words--by their fruits you shall know them. | When we see things like rampant homeless and crushing debt, we | know such things are being said in private. | | It's time to put aside our idealism and don a cynical outlook. | Our rose colored glasses are holding us back. We just need to | make sure we don't become evil in the process. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | What if I think freedom is the greater good? Maybe people just | differ in their goals and priorities? | | I think the current vaccination discussions are a good example. | It used to be that society would accept sacrifices for freedom. | For example they would deem thousands of traffic accident | deaths acceptable in exchange for mobility, or send hundreds of | thousands of soldiers to their death to fight for freedom. | | Now many people seem to feel that every Covid death has to be | avoided at all costs. Which is of course a valid opinion, but | not a given truth, given that at other times, people were | actually willing to pay the price of higher risk in exchange | for freedom. | | So neither group is necessarily wrong, in my opinion, they just | thing different things are more important. | | A good movie that illustrates it may be "I, Robot", when the | robots tasked with protecting humans decide the best way to | protect them is to lock them into their homes. Let's say we | achieve that kind of technology, robots can take of everything, | and humans are safest when locked away at home. Should we | advocate locking everybody up? | jonstaab wrote: | Great essay, but I think fundamentally wrong. | | There are some important distributed systems he overlooks: the | ones found in nature. Gas Laws, photosynthesis, and radiant | energy are pretty great, it means I always have air to breathe. | No one is regulating that, and to do so would only make things | much worse. | | The challenge is that humans suck at designing distributed | systems. Nature is exquisitely designed (or, if you want, | evolved). The solution then, is to root ourselves in nature | rather than desperately, constantly trying to replace it. Bitcoin | is the only new tech I can think of that does this (not sure if | that's the 'most obvious horrifically misguided recently-popular | "decentralized" system' the author refers to). Everything else: | farming subsidies, AI, Keynesian economics, plastic surgery, | vaccines, desk jobs -- are all hopelessly out of touch with | reality. | | That's not to say technology is Bad, but it needs to be real, not | manufactured. | dirtshell wrote: | What is a well designed system, especially in nature? What | values does nature maximize for? Nature is just a bunch of | distributed systems that have chaotically learned to work | "together" in vicious harmony. Nature's "design" is brutal, and | is not compatible with the comforts we have grown to expect in | our modern lives. If nature had its way we would mostly die | around 50 years old of a cold. | ignoramous wrote: | > _Nature 's "design" is brutal, and is not compatible with | the comforts we have grown to expect in our modern lives._ | | Well, that's _some_ human-centric view. | Invictus0 wrote: | List of general malaises: | | > Rich, powerful, greedy people and corporations just get richer, | more powerful, and more greedy. | | > The most reasonable daycare and public transit in the Bay Area | is available only with your Big Tech Employee ID card. | | Seriously? These problems are not remotely in the same ballpark. | | I don't even know what is the point of this article. A handwavey | call for better regulation of "Western society, economics, | capitalism, finance, government, the tech sector, the cloud". Oh, | and free daycare too. Gee thanks doc, I'll get right on it. | [deleted] | pippy wrote: | People like to use the term free market to describe the optimal | market system, but that's pretty lousy terminology. The truth is, | functioning markets are not "free" at all. They are regulated. | Unregulated markets rapidly devolve into monopolies, oligopolies, | monopsonies, and, if things get really bad, libertarianism. | | I've never seen this put so concisely. I've found it frustrating | that so much of the popular social-economic diatribe is based on | outdated economic terminology from 100 years ago. So much has | changed and yet the language does not. | miguelazo wrote: | This reminds me of all the tech people (from Bill Gates on down) | who think society can solve its toughest problems by supposedly | sidestepping politics, as if they were not political actors and | their "solutions" devoid of political context. | | Also, charter schools are the education equivalent of | "greenfield" solutionism alluded to in earlier comments. | anarchy8 wrote: | Anyone who thinks decentralized networks without moderation won't | become cesspools is still living in a Silicon Valley-esque | fantasy land. In fact, many of the proponents seem to be giddy | about the lack of control. If they get their way, they will | poison the idea of decentralized networks in the public mind. | xipho wrote: | Regulation is fine, life requires it. Your whole body is one big | regulatory system, centralized in various ways, making sure | everything in you is aligned. It's a fundamental part of (your) | Life, and we (evolved apes) require other simularly regulated | Life forms to persist. I often wonder if those who don't like | regulation fail to grasp this. I also wonder if those tuning | regulation should look more for clues in evolutionary biology. | There are no easy answers, but evolution has produced some truly | incredible things. Go to then ant thou sluggard, consider her | ways and be wise. | thumbellina wrote: | > All we need is to build distributed systems that work. That | means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. | | XMPP fits this definition. | | Bulk activity occurs via decentralized federation. | | Regulation occurs via yearly updated XMPP compliance suites. | https://xmpp.org/about/compliance-suites/ | pshc wrote: | The future will not be built on XML. | tabtab wrote: | The "network effect" seems to be affecting _everything_ : The | rich get richer, and everybody else fights for scraps. It's | winner-take-all. | | This applies to countries also, not just individuals. If your | country can't quite keep up with cutting edge manufacturing and | services, you lose in the global trade competition and can't | afford to give your citizens up-to-date college education, | exacerbating the slide. | uniqueuid wrote: | Avery is such a treasure trove. | | What's hard about this particular situation, and what we often | don't recognize enough: | | - We regularly overestimate the power of "traditional" systems | such as government, courts, civil society. To a large degree, | we've just been lucky that they work, but it's neither obvious | nor guaranteed that they will continue to do so. | | - One of the hard problems is that we don't have any clue how new | (human-designed) systems affect society. And that's not for lack | of trying - economics, sociology, psychology - they are just | insanely hard because people always lie, keep changing and are so | damn inventive. | nouveaux wrote: | "To a large degree, we've just been lucky that they work, but | it's neither obvious nor guaranteed that they will continue to | do so." | | While I agree that it's not obvious our current systems will | continue to work, I don't think the system is born out of luck. | The system is largely based on trial and error in the pursuit | of what the majority wants. Yes, there are those with outsized | influences and corruption at every level. However, if we look | at history, we are moving slowly towards what we all want. | uniqueuid wrote: | I completely agree. | | Luck was not what created the current system, but luck was | what left it working for so long. This idea is of course not | new, it's the essence of "ages of discord" etc. | mrobot wrote: | There are many negative top-level comments here. I wonder what a | good survey of developers would say about their feelings on the | different bullet points from the article. | munificent wrote: | I love this article so much. | | _> People like to use the term free market to describe the | optimal market system, but that 's pretty lousy terminology. The | truth is, functioning markets are not "free" at all. They are | regulated. Unregulated markets rapidly devolve into monopolies, | oligopolies, monopsonies, and, if things get really bad, | libertarianism._ | | Yes, yes, this 1000x yes. Every time someone on HN or Reddit | blithely assumes deregulation will solve everything, I want to | forcibly point out that the most important word in "free market", | is not "free", it's "market". A free market operates within a | structure that must be created and maintained not using the | properties of the market itself. If you don't have anything with | more power than the market maintaining the market, before long | you don't have a market. And once you don't have a market, you | don't have "free" either. | | There's a reason professional sports matches have referees on the | field. You need a structure more powerful than the game to | preserve the game. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | "I can still enter into a contract with you without ever telling | anyone. I can buy something from you, in cash, and nobody needs | to know. [...] As long as the regulators are doing their job." | | Is he not aware that regulators in many places work towards | making that impossible? | | What are examples of good, helpful regulations, does he cite any? | Or is it just a vague feeling that regulation is good, and | governments are good and for helping people? | | All I read is "bla bla power bad" - all those leftists have is | "power theory". Power this, power that - power somehow explains | everything. It is almost esoteric. | | Even the bad things he claims happen without regulations | (monopolies) are not proven to happen without regulation, and | also not proven to be automatically bad things. | | And his first sentence: | | "Rich, powerful, greedy people and corporations just get richer, | more powerful, and more greedy." | | How does everyone feel so exploited? Who is greedy? Why are you | in their power? How do they make it so that you don't have a | choice? Goods for consumption generally get better and more | affordable over time. So are the producers really so greedy? | | What is stopping you from creating a better bank, better health | care, better what not? The "rich, powerful, greedy" people are | just people like you and me. You are not forced to use their | products. With one exception, the government, whose power you | can't escape - but that somehow is the one thing lefties like? | | I mean some people did and created a better financial system. But | now this leftie hates them, too. Guess it is just unbearable if | people are independent and not victims like everybody else. And | without asking him for permission to boot. | haxiomic wrote: | > What are examples of good, helpful regulations | | There's some fairly obvious ones: we had a problem where a | chemical we were using in many products (CFCs) was destroying a | critical part of our atmosphere - ozone. CFCs were cheap, so in | free market competition, companies were optimizing for short | term success with the unaccounted for externality of increasing | skin cancer rates in humans and other animals. Regulation is | brought in to patch that externality - successfully helping the | world transition to alternative technologies | | You can see regulations as part free market capitalism, you | just have to zoom out from individual corporations and consider | the system patching out local minima with regulations to help | achieve global minima. | | I mean there's a sliding scaling from sophisticated regulations | like CFCs and basic ones like laws against theft (despite it | being cheaper to simply steal products from other people). I'm | not sure you'd call laws against theft a regulation but it's in | the same spirit as the CFCs example | | Of course, regulations without careful thought and planning | don't lead to optimization either - but the point is, from | experience we've learned systems with 0 global regulations tend | to have issues and enter in to local minima - so the trick is | working out the right level and quality of regulation | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | "Free market capitalism" does not mean there should be no | laws whatsoever. It is a trivial realization that markets | have to operate within their given environment, including | laws. Nevertheless you can aim for as much freedom as | possible. You can make it illegal to shoot people, without | having to set prices for goods and labor in law. | | I don't think regulations is synonymous with basic laws in | such discussion. And therefore the CFC example is also not a | good one, as it is obviously an externality. Nobody claims it | should be legal to pollute the environment for free. | haxiomic wrote: | A more complicated challenge is climate change, which is | like the CFC example taken to the extremes. Since every | company uses energy the responsibility is spread among | everyone. However, every group, from countries to companies | stands to lose competitively from using more expensive but | less damaging sources of energy - the market pressures | drive towards companies that take advantage of | externalities like this | | So a solution could be global regulation, where we all | unilaterally agree to transition to better energy sources, | however this has massive resistance and is the battle of | our time | | This sort of regulation is certainly more subtle than don't | steal or shoot people but ultimately leads to a system | that's better for all the players | | More immediately and on the nose, in the UK companies have | been increasingly dumping waste in our rivers since a | relaxation of rules after leaving the EU regulations | https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2021/09/the-raw- | sewage-... | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | That is a common trope, supposedly free running | capitalism would just waste as much energy as possible | without regulation. | | It is of course nonsense, even without regulations | industries have an incentive to save on energy, as it is | a cost factor. | | Or think about cars - people would prefer to buy cars | that use less energy, so that they have a wider range. | Therefore there already is an incentive for car | manufacturers to develop more energy efficient cars. | | Also people can decide they only want to buy products | that adhere to certain production standards, even without | centralized government. | | Overall, nobody claims externalities should have no | price. | haxiomic wrote: | For sure, energy has a cost which you want to optimize | for - no question about it. The crux is when that cost is | artificially low: you can dump your radioactive waste in | the river for as much as it costs to transport it, but | the cost is then payed by the people downstream. Now as | you say if this is tightly causally linked, the people | downstream will fight back against you and then it's not | so cheap. But the problem comes when the causality gets | foggy; it takes decades before there's enough data | gathered to connect the high cancer rates with the waste | dumping miles upstream. By that time the people who made | that decision made bank and exited and are beyond | accountability | | Where this causal disconnect occurs is where regulation | is most effective | | I think we agree, you want to price in your | externalities, but pricing externalities _is_ regulation, | so we're saying the same thing. Perhaps we're crossing | wires somewhere | dirtshell wrote: | Its sort of a given to learned people that regulations are | good. The fact you don't live in a factory town bartering | cigarettes for Amazon Coin you use to buy your meals with is a | testament to this. Or that your company isn't forcing you to | work at gunpoint. The US allowed corporations to run free | during industrialization for just 60 years and they managed to | exploit people to such an extent that even the hands-off US | government stepped in and started pushing regulations. When | able to relentlessly pursue profits, companies will stop at no | length to increase profits, and we have seen this all across | the world. I believe your partisanship is clouding your | judgment. | | The author is also clearly not a leftist based on the contents | of the article, and his allusions to centrally planned | societies (aka their understanding of communism) as a fool's | errand. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | So you just use regulations synonymous with laws? Like the | example of "no regulations" is that you can just shoot people | that bother you? | | Nobody argues that there should be no laws, so that is a | pretty useless discussion. | | But you can not say "without regulations, people would be | free to murder each other, therefore all regulations are | good". Some laws can be good, some can be bad. | | "The author is also clearly not a leftist based on the | contents of the article, and his allusions to centrally | planned societies (aka their understanding of communism) as a | fool's errand." | | The more regulations you get, the further down you are on the | path to centrally planned society. Regulations are central | planning. Like demanding a minimum wage is central planning, | it is literally planning economy, setting prices for things | with disregard of the markets. | | So if the author is in favor of that, he is a leftist, plain | and simple. | | Look at the way he writes: he laments that "Everyone seems to | increasingly be in it for themselves, not for society." - and | you want to tell me he is not following a collectivist, | leftist ideology, yearning for a socialist utopia? | amelius wrote: | A house making more money than a person working a day job. | vadfa wrote: | It makes sense since there aren't enough houses for all the | people who want to live in an area. | asdfman123 wrote: | > We don't need deregulation. We need better designed regulation. | | The article's thesis is so obvious that it's amazing it needs to | be argued in this particular way. | | Two thoughts here: | | 1) It's often problematic when people take absolutist views on | things, i.e. "government regulation is ALWAYS bad." The optimal | amount is never zero. | | 2) After following some "dark enlightenment" people on Twitter | and libertarians with a subset of very far right viewpoints, it's | becoming clear that lots of these people claim to want "freedom," | but what they really want is freedom from the existing power | hierarchies, and to create new ones in which they are on top | again. | labratmatt wrote: | You see what you want to see. These are not true in my daily | life, | | 1 "Rich, powerful, greedy people and corporations just get | richer, more powerful, and more greedy." 2 "Everyone seems to | increasingly be in it for themselves, not for society." 3 "Or, | people who are in it for society tend to lose or to get screwed | until they give up." | | Dial back the doom and gloom mindset. It's an abundant world. | cardosof wrote: | Inequality is something we can measure to some degree and it | seems to be rising fast. | notpachet wrote: | All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi advocates | regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and Regulators and | what not -- you know what they remind me of? They remind me of | what I hear from junior developers when they're tasked with | fixing an antiquated, broken software system. These developers | typically lack the experience and the patience necessary to fix | the system incrementally from within, so they usually propose a | hard fork, or a rewrite in <new frontend framework>, or some | other such shiny greenfield solution that promises eternal escape | from the problems of the past. | | It's strange to me that a lot of pragmatically-minded developers | I know would point to the immediate problems with that kind of | approach, but are nevertheless quick to embrace the equivalent | approach when faced with society-scaled problems. | | And I do think that there are equal parts incompetence and | laziness at play. I myself am often tempted by the siren song of | burning a legacy codebase to the ground and starting from | scratch. I'm lazy and I know that it's going to suck to roll up | my sleeves and do what's necessary. But I also know, from having | done that enough times, that this impulse is often an abdication | of my responsibility to actually fix what needs fixing instead of | playing with new toys. | enchiridion wrote: | Separate from the validity of your take, it shouldn't surprise | you. | | People from the field already have the tear it down and rebuild | attitude. It's only unlearned after hard experience. But that | experience is never gained on society level problems because | they are not making the decisions. | t2riRXawYxLGGYb wrote: | It's true that rewriting everything is not always the right | answer and that fixing existing systems is underrated. However, | there are very few instances in history of systems being | indefinitely fixed and upgraded. Most societies were not | gradually improved and reformed forever: eventually they fell | and were replaced with new societies. The same is true of | technology and companies: most technology is eventually | completely replaced with newer, better technology that is | inspired by earlier technology but that is still new. The cool | thing about DeFi is that it has built-in ways of upgrading | itself. In traditional systems, upgrades are more centralized | and have a single point of failure: once that point of failure | (eg the developer/maintainer) stops upgrading, the system dies. | agumonkey wrote: | This DeFi thing is big, large, involves money, teh future; is | probably bubbly. There's not a lot to understand IMO. It's a | wave of emotions wrapped into "tech". It's wise to treat it | like a ~thing and see how it evolves. | anon9001 wrote: | Is it possible that DeFi is _not_ a wave of emotions wrapped | into tech? | | I think the more likely explanation is that it's a way for | people who own crypto to borrow and lend. | | It's probably one of the first things to be built because | there's a lot of people with crypto and banks don't want to | accept it as collateral. | agumonkey wrote: | There's so much probabilities that I cannot help but see | more dreams than reality so far. Even if some things manage | to deliver .. who knows how it will evolve. Look at | facebook, juggernaut, unstoppable.. already rotting. Then | it's economy/finance tied.. there will be a lot of forces | at play and few people that know who will influence the | market more. Hence my message above. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Thanks, I think your comment clearly explains some ideas I've | had for a while but have been struggling to elucidate. | | I think it's also why you see so much "pendulum-ism" in the | tech world. Something about the current paradigm is difficult | ("monoliths make it hard for large teams to release software | quickly and independently!"), so then a new paradigm comes | along which perhaps addresses some of the shortcomings of the | old one, but conveniently ignores all the problems the original | paradigm solved ("microservices make it easy to break up work | so teams can release frequently and kinda-independently, but | now you've got worse problems like transactional boundaries, | coordinating cross-cutting concerns, alert escalation, etc.") | | I see the same thing with crypto enthusiasts. They see "the | code is the law, transactions can never be rescinded!" as a | feature, but the broader financial system has concluded over | centuries that that is a bug and that you need and want a human | arbiter from time to time. | whatshisface wrote: | I don't believe the broader financial system ever tried out | making transactions impossible to reverse. They might not | have ever had the power to do it. | | Another thing to bear in mind is that none of the | participants in the financial system have ever been | interested in designing a financial system. They have been | interested in making money. | samhw wrote: | > none of the participants in the financial system have | ever been interested in designing a financial system | | I agree to some extent with the view that we should see | systems as emergent phenomena arising from countless | participants none of whom understands or intends the entire | thing, but you can go overboard with that. There are | clearly some participants who _have_ taken a 'God's eye | view' and tried to re/design an entire system (Bretton | Woods, Dodd-Frank, Visa/Mastercard, &c). | whatshisface wrote: | Breton Woods and Visa/Mastercard were top level | designs... But they were designed to make money. (For the | US and Visa/Mastercard respectively.) Nobody has ever | taken the "god's eye view" with the intent to be nice. | mistermann wrote: | > Nobody has ever taken the "god's eye view" with the | intent to be nice. | | This is a really good point. | | There are some _kinda_ exceptions[1] now and then, but | there are many reasons why they tend to not work (not | short term profitable being one of the main ones). | Despite that, it seems we 're pretty short even on good | ideas lately, like our culture has lost the ability to | dream big about positive things (we're excellent at | doomsday dreaming, especially about our political | outgroup members). | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller | frockington1 wrote: | Wire transfers are next to impossible to reverse, that's | why fraud is so rampant | solveit wrote: | > I don't believe the broader financial system ever tried | out making transactions impossible to reverse. They might | not have ever had the power to do it. | | I mean, cash transactions are irreversible right? Unless | you mean that there was always a government willing to | force a reversal, in which case crypto (and all technical | solutions) isn't all that different. It's just another day | in the never-ending arms race between the regulator and the | regulatee. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Cash transactions, by definition, are pretty much always | in-person. Thus, the risk of fraud or "significantly not | as described" goods are significantly reduced. On the | contrary, the modern world depends on being able to | transact remotely. | | Even then, there is still recourse if you pay for | something with cash and the thing you buy ends up being | non-functional (e.g. small claims court). And since the | transaction was in person it's less likely you have no | idea who the seller is. | andrewprock wrote: | Cash transactions are easily reversible. I'm not sure why | we think they are not. | solveit wrote: | How do you reverse a cash transaction in a way that | doesn't apply to crypto? | moffkalast wrote: | That's a pretty good point actually, cash worked | perfectly fine without this feature for centuries. | soco wrote: | When a store charged me twice for the same item last month | I was very happy to be able to reverse the transaction. | moffkalast wrote: | Maybe it's just me, but we all place an awful lot of | trust giving vendors essentially all credit card details | possible AND where we live so that they're capable of | skimming a self defined sum off by themselves. It's like | an inherently insane system. We're supposed to be the one | wiring the cash, not the vendor themselves with our data. | MauranKilom wrote: | By that notion, the fact that almost all home locks are | easily pickable and glass windows breakable is also | insane. There's tons of valuables behind almost all of | these! | | We found meaningful ways of disincentivizing theft, which | turns out to be largely sufficient even in face of | fallible security. The exact same applies to card data in | the hands of merchants. | serverholic wrote: | "We found meaningful ways of disincentivizing X". | | Take that logic and apply it to crypto and hopefully | that'll help you understand why crypto enthusiasts | believe in it. | | The fact is that we can and do find ways around flaws in | a system. Crypto folks just think that a crypto | foundation is better than the current foundation of our | financial systems. | MauranKilom wrote: | > Take that logic and apply it to crypto and hopefully | that'll help you understand why crypto enthusiasts | believe in it. | | That's exactly the point of the article: You need some | form of guardrail, and that has to be centralized. | | > Crypto folks just think that a crypto foundation is | better than the current foundation of our financial | systems. | | How so? I am not under the impression that current | financial providers have significant issues in | consistently exchanging numbers... | mcguire wrote: | " _...they 're capable of skimming a self defined sum off | by themselves._" | | I wonder what happens if someone does that? | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | I find it insulting how we are at the mercy of | subscription services charging us for cancelled | memberships. | | How come our bank won't give us a dashboard with all of | our monthly charges and cancel them at will? | kiklion wrote: | Because your contract here is with the subscription | service, not the bank. | | Just as you can't cancel your brothers subscriptions, the | subscription service has no reason to accept a | cancellation request from your bank. | | Even if the service was no longer able to charge your | card, you would still owe the money. The debt you | incurred monthly is separate from your choice of how to | pay that debt. | nradov wrote: | Credit card issuers and processors only grant merchant | accounts to vendors who have shown themselves | trustworthy. While the system isn't perfect it works | pretty well. If a vendor has many charge backs then they | will be subject to higher fees and then account | termination. | bsanr2 wrote: | >the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system | incrementally from within | | Occasionally, this doesn't exist. Hence, for example, the | American Civil War. You're making the mistake of assuming that | software engineering design schema work for all real-world | problems (or, rather, that that which would be foolish in | approaching the redesign of software is necessarily also | foolish in reforming other systems). | | In fact, the "incremental change over time" approach is often | the comfortable, irresponsible choice, in no small part because | it allows bad actors the opportunity to adjust their approach | to align with the new rules. This is especially true when the | corrupt status quo threatens to collapse not only the system in | question, but also many interrelated systems. The last thing | you need when approaching a cliff is the car enthusiast in | charge of the wheel and the child lock. Sometimes brakes aren't | enough; you might need to just jump. | vkou wrote: | > It's strange to me that a lot of pragmatically-minded | developers I know would point to the immediate problems with | that kind of approach, but are nevertheless quick to embrace | the equivalent approach when faced with society-scaled | problems. | | They are doing it for the same reason that the junior | developers are doing what you describe. | | It is difficult to understand why a full rewrite of a system | isn't going to work, when you don't understand the simplest | things about that system. | cletus wrote: | > All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi | advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and | Regulators and what not | | There are several different people that seem inclined to be | attracted to crypto. This is just one and there's a huge | crossover with gold bugs. There are also people who have made a | lot of money or missed out on making a lot of money and have | bought into the narrative that crypto is the future and/or | they're desperately seeking to be in on day one of the next | Bitcoin. | | I agree about rewrites in general. Almost always, in fact. But | I also believe in software entropy and it can reach a point | where the current requirements are so far removed from the | original requirements that subsequent changes can become | increasingly expensive and risky to the point where a partial | or total rewrite _might_ make sense. But people also pull the | trigger way too often. | | Considerations for a rewrite: | | 1. Timeline. Will the current system stagnate for a year? If | so, it's a problem; | | 2. Can a rewrite be partial and coexist with the current | system? If not, huge problem. You reduce timelines and risk by | planning for partial rewrites; and | | 3. Is a rewrite or migration reversible? If not, it's a red | flag. | | It's also why it's so important to build in the capability to | upgrade the system cleanly in part. A good example (of what not | to do) is Git's utter reliance on SHA1 hashes. At the time it | came out I'm absolutely shocked there was no allowance for | updating the hashing algorithm given that MD5 obsolescence was | recent history at that point. | | > And I do think that there are equal parts incompetence and | laziness at play. | | I think naivete plays a big part too. That and hubris ("this | time will be different"). | freddref wrote: | The lava layer anti-pattern springs to mind, where the new tech | becomes another quirk of the old tech. | varelse wrote: | I find one exception to what you're saying. If you had a large | role in building that legacy code base you are carrying around | all the tech debt and repairs in your head. And if you're | mindful of that, you can rebuild guided by what you have | learned from the ground up and it will work. See John | CarMmack's increasingly awesome series of 3D engines he wrote | over the years. | | But that's not how it usually works in the tech industry where | you inherit someone else's code who also inherited it from | someone else as it was written by somebody they never met. And | on that front you are dead-on | moolcool wrote: | You're totally right, but this mentality doesn't totally | invalidate the concept of DeFi. Like the state of DeFi today | functions alongside the systems of today-- it's utility isn't | contingent on burning the entire system to the ground. | auggierose wrote: | I think Google has proven that you can change the system, | dramatically. I am never going to try fixing an antiquated, | broken software system. Just let it burn. | dcow wrote: | This is why I'm bullish on Chia. Their philosophy is quite | plainly: operate within the existing regulatory framework and | existing social ground rules (i.e. as a traditional capitalist | institution beholden to the SEC) to provide and be the steward | of a better backend and tools for doing (as the article | asserts) the fundamentally distributed operation of processing | payments and supporting markets. There's a pre-farm that | supports the company, they're going to make a lot of money for | their investors (which you can participate in too if you want). | That's nothing new and so be it. That's the world we live in. | | It is deliberately not, "burn the world we need a crypto | revolution right now society be damned". I don't like the term | crypto and neither does Chia. | | We need a modern ACH (you know the thing runs on FTP right?) | and actual digital cash. And we need the people supporting the | system to be "the people". A decentralized ledger with a strong | Eltoo (L2) ecosystem does serve this goal. | | If you're of the sane moderate opinion that we need better | tools and that the ideas behind DeFi aren't entirely worthless | but still think society mostly kinda works but some parts need | a refactor, check the chia community out. They're thoughtful | level headed players in the "DeFi" space. Refactor, not | rewrite. | FooHentai wrote: | >These developers typically lack the experience and the | patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within, | so they usually propose a hard fork, or a rewrite in <new | frontend framework>, or some other such shiny greenfield | solution that promises eternal escape from the problems of the | past. | | An awful lot of the productive and unproductive effort in | society is generated by idealistic inexperienced people forging | ahead with something because they are unaware of the depth and | complexity that awaits them. The paradox of experience is that | you can avoid pointless pursuits but you also miss worthwhile | ones due to low likelihood of success or high perceived effort. | | Same experience as you but in systems administration and | engineering, FWIW. Sure sign of an inexperienced sysadmin is | their desire to throw things out and deploy new ones rather | than figuring out why things are the way they are and seeing if | they can be improved without throwing the baby out with the | bathwater. Sure sign of an experienced admin is an almost | inhuman ability to tolerate rotten systems without flipping a | table, but also living with a lot of pointless shit that would | benefit from a re-work or swap out. | gaze wrote: | I half agree. Yes I do think you have a bunch of technologists | self-indulgently trying to apply the next shiny thing where | bettering the world is second priority. However, I think | changing the system from inside is largely a fool's errand. | There are indeed proven methods for political change. Unions, | protest, organizing, these things. They're unsexy and boring | and tedious, much like you've described, but these do work. | winternett wrote: | This is why I generally only interview for jobs that are | seeking work within my tech stack, or projects which haven't | yet formed into a developed solution. | | I am beyond tired in working to convince teams about the | adoption of simple solutions, everyone has their own opinions | and skills, and people are too often difficult to change. I | can quickly develop proof of concepts (much faster than my | competition) because of the tools and methods I use, and I | can run it all locally, or in the cloud. It's reliable and | used across many prominent clients as well... If others can | beat me to suggesting a solution, that's fine as well, but | ultimately, what works efficiently based on the requirements | wins, and that's what's fair. | nprz wrote: | If you look at wealth inequality over the past 50 years it | would seem to indicate that those methods don't actually seem | to accomplish much. | wyre wrote: | Union membership is down drastically over 50 years which is | why it isn't accomplishing much. If you do an image search | for 'union membership wealth inequality' you'll find a | graph of union membership imposed with a graph of income | going to the top 10%. It's incredibly negatively | correlated. | jonstaab wrote: | Broaden your historical context, and Keynes becomes the junior | developer who thinks he can elegantly fix everything. | marcosdumay wrote: | Thinking deeply about the system and finding the changes you | can apply with minimal disruption and maximal impact is the | opposite of what the GP is talking about. | yourabstraction wrote: | You make a good point about software development in general, | but I don't think it applies to things as fundamentally | revolutionary as crypto. Sometimes system _do_ have to be | completely re-thought from the ground up. I don't believe it's | possible for our current financial systems to morph into an | open network for storing and transmitting value (the internet | of money as some call crypto). | dmitriid wrote: | > as fundamentally revolutionary as crypto. | | This is a huge claim, and needs to have just as huge of a | proof. | | However, all cryptos can offer is poof (as in poof, and gone) | than proof. | yourabstraction wrote: | Well of course there's no way to prove it now. Could you | have proved how revolutionary the internet would be in its | early days? You have to be open minded and extrapolate from | the principles of the new system and its interactions with | society at large to _guess_ how impactful it may be. I | believe the fundamental principles of crypto (open, | permissionless, decentralized, global, neutral, etc.) make | it highly likely to revolutionize finance. | dmitriid wrote: | > Could you have proved how revolutionary the internet | would be in its early days? | | Yes. Yes, you could. 10 years after ARPANet was made | public you already had things like France's Minitel. | | Blockchains? They still have zero use cases: | https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody- | has-c... | | > You have to be open minded and extrapolate | | Ah yes. "Revolutionary tech", and all you have to do is | blindly believe in it. | yourabstraction wrote: | This zero use cases rhetoric is really low effort. Here | are some just off the top of my head. | | sovereign store of value (useful if your government | sucks) | | permissionless payments (funding wikileaks) | | private/anonymous transactions (Monero) | | event tickets (good use of NFTs) | | synthetic assets (anyone/anywhere can speculate on TSLA) | | decentralized asset exchange - AMM | | decentralized prediction markets | | DAO - a new way for people to organize and form internet | native companies | serverholic wrote: | How a tech enthusiast doesn't think these are all | extremely interesting is beyond me. | Joeri wrote: | Let's assume (and that's a big if) that crypto is a | fundamentally better foundation to base finance on. Even if | it is, we cannot presently know that it is, and we cannot | predict what its unique failure scenarios will be and how to | counter them. Therefore for me arguing a headlong dive into | crypto is indeed like a junior developer arguing for the big | rewrite. | | I also fail to see the fundamental difference between crypto | and gold. Anyone can mine gold, there is no central authority | creating gold or determining its value. Gold is just as | decentral a currency as crypto. If gold was not the solution | to the financial system, why would crypto be? | dcow wrote: | Not totally disagreeing with the rest of your comment, but | we haven't had a gold standard for awhile now, and _that's_ | the problem. Lifting fiat off gold lets institutions play | games with fiat to increase their fiat with the appearance | of being a good steward of fiat. This is what people don't | trust. | jakub_g wrote: | > Anyone can mine gold | | Bizarre comment - there's only a handful of places in the | world where gold is located (most countries have close to | zero), and they're probably controlled by some powerful | private entity and probably under a gov license. | Negitivefrags wrote: | Nothing is preventing you just going to a gold producing | river and panning for gold. | | You will be just as effective doing that as someone who | just runs the Bitcoin client at home. | | Getting serious requires specialised hardware setup and | capital intensive operations in both gold mining and | Bitcoin mining. | aaronharnly wrote: | Interestingly enough, between 1933 and 1975, it was a | criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold | anywhere in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry | and collector's coins. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act | zarzavat wrote: | The fundamental difference between cryptocurrency and gold | is that cryptocurrency can be transmitted whereas gold can | only be carried. | | Try carrying a bar of gold across a border and you'll end | up in an interrogation room. | soco wrote: | How about declaring it in the first place? | alchemism wrote: | That is why diamonds are traditionally used for that sort | of transfer. | yourabstraction wrote: | I agree that gold and Bitcoin have some very key | similarities, but gold and crypto in general are quite | different. With regards to Bitcoin, yes they're both stores | of value, but Bitcoin has the added ability to transact | globally and be much more divisible. Bitcoin seems to have | settled into two roles within the greater crypto ecosystem; | store of value and reserve currency for the entire crypto | economy. Now there are also things happening in the Bitcoin | payments space using lightening, but I don't think there | will ever be a large appetite for payments using a | deflationary currency (It's your savings account, not your | checking account). | | But outside of Bitcoin there is a ton of cool stuff | happening in the DeFi space which could have big | implications for our financial systems. One example is | stablecoins which has a much better chance of being used in | payment systems than a store of value like Bitcoin. In | general I don't see this stuff replacing the financial | system so much as finance companies slowly adopting crypto | on the backend. Just like companies adopted internet | technology as it allowed them to run more efficiently. | themacguffinman wrote: | Crypto blockchains are a technical boondoggle in a | financial system that already has trusted institutions. | The whole costly & complex system of blockchain | transactions is designed to simulate trust without | authorities, I don't see any technical reason why it | would be more efficient than a simple encrypted packet + | an optimized database that a regulated institution can | implement when it doesn't need to simulate trust. Even | Proof of Stake is totally unnecessary in a regulated | financial system. | curiousllama wrote: | You're right, but it's because we made the conscious decision | to not have a totally-open playing field after seeing how it | went. | | It's like the old code base: we made a bunch of incremental | design decisions over 50+ years that are all layered on top | of each other. They are now so complex that nobody can | coherently explain the whole thing. But does that mean we | should burn it down? Not necessarily. If we rebuild from | scratch, we're liable to simply re-learn why we built the | hacky solution in the first place. | | Crypto is great. It's a wonderful innovation - and will | likely succeed in many ways. But it won't replace central | banks and regulators (except, potentially, by replicating | them) because the institutions are actually useful. | yourabstraction wrote: | I don't think crypto will replace the financial systems we | have or that we should burn down what's already there. I | think the way it will play out is that it will increasingly | get used on the backend of the legacy financial system. So | the front end will appear similar to the consumer with the | same usability and protections they're used to, while the | backend will be settling transaction using a variety of | crypto networks. The consumer will then have the option of | using the centralized front ends or communicating directly | with the decentralized crypto protocols. | MauranKilom wrote: | What is the benefit of using crypto on the backend? | icehawk wrote: | The point makes sense since a lot of the complexity of the | current financial system isn't because of the money, it's | because of the /people./ | | The complexity comes from the rules enacted to shield people | from bad actors, and that's just going to be re-applied to | crypto in some way shape or form. | agallant wrote: | I agree that it's similar to a hard fork (and has similar | problems), but would argue that (due to the "interdisciplinary" | nature of fintech) it's not incompetence or laziness but rather | the blind spot/hubris of being a technical person looking at a | social system. | | An experienced developer has seen enough technical systems to | understand the lurking complexity and hard problems within | them. Realizing that applies to other systems is a separate | insight, and one that is harder to reliably teach/learn. It's | not enough to dabble in other fields - it's easy to do that as | a mental tourist, assuming your prior experience generalizes. | | Learning these challenges requires a form of intellectual | empathy - believing that people who think hard about things | that are alien to you are still thinking hard, and have | probably tried your first intuitions already, as well as things | you've not thought of yet. | SassyGrapefruit wrote: | >All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi | advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and | Regulators and what not... | | >so they usually propose a hard fork, or a rewrite in <new | frontend framework> | | Sometimes you hard fork. We used to compute ballistic | trajectory by hand. Huge rooms of "human computers". We did | this until a better way presented itself then we hard forked | because actual computers did the job much better. | | In addition most pragmatic project runners(Kraken, Coinbase, | etc.) use the blockchain and the traditional financial system | together. Many serious DeFI projects(e.g. stablecoins) do the | same. I think its clear that anyone serious about DeFi knows | they have to start with the financial system where it is today. | | I think what you are stating is a bit reductive. | SkyMarshal wrote: | _> They remind me of what I hear from junior developers when | they 're tasked with fixing an antiquated, broken software | system._ | | You're not wrong, but since you're on HN they should also | remind you of the entire startup ecosystem and the reason for | its existence. | | Talented people often find they can't get anything done in | huge, bureaucratic organizations. Cutting through layers upon | layers of red tape and getting chains of approvals to build | something new and better, is slow, frustrating, and life- | sucking. | | It's worse when there are people whose approvals are necessary | who benefit in some way from the current status quo, and thus | are incentivized to preserve and protect it. | | Thus, talented people often leave and start startups primarily | to get out of that environment, move fast, and build without | permission or restriction. | | It's the same for cryptocurrency, nobody in their right mind | wants to try to fix the financial system from within, and there | are too many incumbents who benefit from the status quo, it's | just a waste of time and life. | | PS - Disclaimer, I estimate only about 10% of DeFi projects are | worth anything, but that's the nature of things - you can't | have the signal without the noise. | amelius wrote: | If what you say is true, we'd all be programming in COBOL | still. | | Since the invention of money our economy hasn't changed in | essence, but a lot of cruft has been built on top of the basic | underlying principle. | pezzana wrote: | Then you're listening to the wrong people. The world's | currencies are being weaponized against other countries and | against citizens. It's a project decades in the making. You may | not feel part of that yet, but if you express any opinion in | public you may. | | Centralization of money is "evil" because it sooner or later | you're going to find yourself on the list of undesirables. When | you do, centralization (and the technology that goes with it) | makes it as easy as flicking a switch to economically banish | you. | grey-area wrote: | Money has always been owned by and manipulated by the | powerful. That is not a project decades in the making, it's a | natural consequences of our power relations. | | There are lots of reasons to want a decentralised currency | system or at least one not run by nation states but Bitcoin | is a terrible example of one with so many flaws, and 'defi' | and 'crypto' is plagued by hucksters and scams. I'd rather | the devil I know at this point thanks (inflation and monetary | repression) vs outright fraud and shills. | pezzana wrote: | > Money has always been owned by and manipulated by the | powerful. | | You're fighting a strawman. What I said was that money was | being weaponized. Examples: | | - currency-driven economic sanctions (other countries) | | - civil asset forfeiture (citizens) | | These are new developments enabled by the dollar standard | (1971), payment technologies (2000-), and the ever | expanding power of government (particularly US, post-9/11). | The advent of the hydrogen bomb (1952) means that countries | can no longer contemplate direct warfare and have been | turning toward economic warfare increasingly in the last | several decades. | moistrobot wrote: | Code doesn't actively resist your attempts to improve it. Our | broken institutions are fighting to protect their kingdom | notpachet wrote: | > Code doesn't actively resist your attempts to improve it. | | Tell that to this Angular 1 app. | Juliate wrote: | The "kingdom" as you say it, involves instutions AND people | that depend on it, if only, by habit, but also by trust. Be | these habit and trust be misplaced or not is not much | relevant: a new system just does not have a hint of these | either just because it's new. | dmitriid wrote: | > Our broken institutions are fighting to protect their | kingdom | | Three years ago I bought an apartment. | | I got a loan from a bank over internet and phone. The | contract was three pages of clear Swedish that even I, with | my rudimentary knowledge of i, could understand. The contract | signing was intermediated by a person whose job is to make | sure everything goes smoothly. | | In the end, all of the following was _guaranteed_ : | | - I had the money | | - money was transfered into the other person's account | | - I was not a scammer | | - that person wasn't a scammer | | - I received actual physical keys to an actual physical | apartment (and not to an non-existent address) | | (a bunch of other stuff) | | So, tell me. What exactly does your crypto improve? | moistrobot wrote: | I'm glad it went well for you :) | | All of those guarantees are under threat of legal | punishment enforced through court systems. | | All of those guarantees are given to you based on good | standing with various institutions. The bank, the | intermediary, the seller. | | If you were a person who was not in good standing with a | bank, but you still had the money, could you have completed | the transaction? | | Technology has a trend of destroying middleman industries, | as they don't provide value and take a portion of the | proceeds for themselves. | | DeFi, in this case, is targeting the financial institutions | because we now have technological means to replace banks | and lenders. Does that mean this process is smooth? or | ready for mass adoption? Not necessarily, but the | destruction of banks by technology is inevitable. It's just | a matter of when | soco wrote: | If I'm a person who has money but is in bad standing with | the banks, maybe I shouldn't be able to do financial | transactions at all. It's that, or I'm imagining the | wrong reasons why a person with money would have trouble | with banks. | marvin wrote: | Could you get more specific about the reasons or the | definition of a financial transaction? Not being able to | do financial transactions seems like a slow-motion death | sentence. | moistrobot wrote: | Totally agree, as long as the reasons the banks have are | valid. | | The problem is that that decision is made by people. | Standards of conduct are not universal. What if political | affiliation or COVID vaccination status affects your | ability to transact with a bank, even though those things | have nothing to do with buying or selling real estate | histriosum wrote: | Even within crypto/defi, it's still people making the | decisions. People wrote the algorithms. The only | advantage I see there is that, in theory, you should be | able to see what rules are encoded in that algorithm, so | it's slightly more transparent in that sense. | | On the negative side, though, there's essentially no rule | of law to prevent the people making the decisions in DeFi | from doing things that are bad/illegal/invalid. | | > What if political affiliation or COVID vaccination | status affects your ability to transact with a bank, even | though those things have nothing to do with buying or | selling real estate | | In the regulated finance world, these sorts of | restrictions would be disallowed by the rule of law. You | can sue them if they try to enforce those rules, and | depending on your jurisdiction, you may win and indeed | win damages. What's the equivalent in DeFi? Who do I sue? | What court do I ask for relief? | moistrobot wrote: | > Even within crypto/defi, it's still people making the | decisions. People wrote the algorithms. The only | advantage I see there is that, in theory, you should be | able to see what rules are encoded in that algorithm, so | it's slightly more transparent in that sense. | | Agreed. People still create the system, but they have | zero to little sway in each individual transaction. So, | the system can be biased, but with increased | transparency, that should become apparent. | | > On the negative side, though, there's essentially no | rule of law to prevent the people making the decisions in | DeFi from doing things that are bad/illegal/invalid. | | Very true, there's a lot of scamming going on. It's still | very bleeding edge and not ready for mainstream adoption. | | > In the regulated finance world, these sorts of | restrictions would be disallowed by the rule of law. You | can sue them if they try to enforce those rules, and | depending on your jurisdiction, you may win and indeed | win damages. What's the equivalent in DeFi? Who do I sue? | What court do I ask for relief? | | At least in the US, this is not the case for payment | processors. Banks may be under more strict regulation. | Visa/Mastercard can revoke the ability for anyone to | process transactions on their network, even if the | activity is completely legal. E.G. OnlyFans/Pornhub | recently. | MauranKilom wrote: | > > On the negative side, though, there's essentially no | rule of law to prevent the people making the decisions in | DeFi from doing things that are bad/illegal/invalid. | | > Very true, there's a lot of scamming going on. It's | still very bleeding edge and not ready for mainstream | adoption. | | Could you elaborate how you think this problem will be | fixed for mainstream adoption? | moistrobot wrote: | I wish I could. If I knew how, I would be implementing | this as fast as humanly possible. The first person to fix | this problem will make $1 billion, easy | preseinger wrote: | It is I think vastly better for people to make those | decisions than for them to be made by smart contract. The | institutions we discuss now are at their core social | systems. | moistrobot wrote: | I think that's a totally valid opinion. | | The advantage to people is that they can more flexible. | | The disadvantage to people is that they can be more | irrational. | mrguyorama wrote: | Are you suggesting that code is more rational than the | imperfect people who implement it? | dmitriid wrote: | > Technology has a trend of destroying middleman | industries, as they don't provide value and take a | portion of the proceeds for themselves. | | So, these middlemen that "don't provide any value" | guarantee that: my money isn't stolen, that I get the | apartment I was shown etc. | | So, you've removed these middlemen. How exactly is your | technology going to solve this? | | > DeFi, in this case, is targeting the financial | institutions because we now have technological means to | replace banks and lenders. | | No, you don't. With banks I can revert a fraudulent | transaction (I paid, but the goods never showed up). How | is defi solving this simple case? | amelius wrote: | It doesn't always work out well for everybody. Check this | out: | | https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-59069662 | dmitriid wrote: | The key is: it works well _for most people_. So, the | question remains: What exactly does your crypto improve? | | And on top of that, in this case, how will it help with | the stolen house in Luton? | whatshisface wrote: | It improves that process in a disintegrating third world | country, which many of us may find ourselves in within our | lifetimes. | brandonmenc wrote: | If you wake up one day and find that your society is | disintegrating with that speed, you're going to need | food, water, ammo - all of which are tradeable - and a | good support network - not a bunch of fake computer | monopoly money tokens. | whatshisface wrote: | You don't wake up into a disintegrating society, you wake | up into a society that's a little worse every day for | decades. See: other highly developed countries that are | no longer considered highly developed. | brandonmenc wrote: | That's still pretty fast. | oblio wrote: | There are very few highly developed countries that fell | from that status without being at war. | | Argentina is the only one that comes to mind. | | Planning for the apocalypse isn't really planning, but I | guess we all need hobbies. | kevingadd wrote: | How does it improve the process in a disintegrating third | world country right now? Lay it out, which steps in the | process does it improve or replace? Do you know anyone | who's utilized it that way, or are there case studies? | dmitriid wrote: | > It improves that process in a disintegrating third | world country, | | A disintegrating third world country will not be able to | enforce anything. So, you've transferred your money and | got a key to a non-existent place. | | Good luck with your "improved process". | WJW wrote: | That's nice and I hope it works out for them, given how | difficult it can be to get physical objects properly | tracked in a digital system when the people responsible | for entering data into the system can be corrupt. But | getting the third world digitized is the very opposite of | the "very interesting innovation" that everyone else in | this thread keeps referring to; it is just making some | thing that already exists again. That is not innovation, | that is an incremental improvement at best. | | For those of us living in prosperous Western countries | (and let's not kid ourselves, that is at least 90% of | HN), the biggest attraction of cryptocurrencies seems to | be "if you buy this, it might be worth more in the | future". Which is nice, but hardly innovative. | bsagdiyev wrote: | No it doesn't and no you won't. Where is this fatalism | coming from? | fsflover wrote: | Unfortunately very few people live in a democratic country | with the rule of law like Sweden. For the rest, crypto can | be a good place to keep their funds without the fear of | losing. | dmitriid wrote: | > Unfortunately very few people live in a democratic | country with the rule of law like Sweden. | | You mean, the absolute vast majority of people in this | world live in contries with more-or-less functioning | governments. Not perfect, but functioning. | | > or the rest, crypto can be a good place to keep their | funds without the fear of losing. | | Ah yes. The only use case is hoarding. Even though I | specifically provided a different case that doesn't | involve hoarding. | preseinger wrote: | The overwhelming majority of people live in countries | with representative government and functioning legal | systems. Yes, the US and Russia and China and India and | Brazil all meet this description. Why do you believe | otherwise? | zapataband1 wrote: | I agree but it's one of these crazy sounding ideas that could | actually have a use case. Like the author says these are just | distributed systems and 'decentralized' 'web3' is really just a | sophisticated way of coming to agreement. I think there's a lot | that people can build with tech like this, but it's no silver | bullet. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | The difference here is that the existing codebase isn't just | broken, it's structurally resistant to being fixed. | | Fixing your old legacy software takes time, but probably less | time than starting over from scratch. | | Fixing the legacy financial system doesn't just take the time | to fix _that_ system; first you have to fix the system of | politics and corruption that makes that system what it is. And | fight all of the people with powerful lobbyists and an enormous | financial stake in the status quo. | | When the amount of work it takes to fix the existing system is | more than the amount of work it takes to build a new one, the | answer changes. | jdmichal wrote: | Any process inscribed in the technology is part of a larger | business process, and as such is also resistant to such | change. You can do refactoring all you want, which by | definition means not changing inputs and outputs. But you | can't change the process without looping in business. And | then it becomes about making a business case for spending the | money and time and training and etc to make a change to the | business process. | leetcrew wrote: | a legacy codebase can be structurally resistant to being | fixed. | | you're afraid to change things because there's no test | coverage. okay let's add some automated tests. oops can't do | that either because the whole thing is a tightly-coupled pile | of spaghetti with no interface boundaries. so you start by | refactoring. but because there are no tests, you don't | realize you are breaking a bunch of important business | functionality and now people are yelling at you to stop | whatever you are doing and fix these bugs. | | no matter what you do, it's going to get a lot worse before | it gets better. but hey, people are actually getting stuff | done with your product/service in the meantime. as painful as | it is, it's still probably better to fix what you have than | to start over. | Vetch wrote: | This captures the backwards compatibility and long range | entangled dependencies aspect of change resistance. It | misses the aspect of organizations that is agent like, | capable of homeostasis. Unlike static code, when things | change, such systems will actively seek policies and apply | levers of control to maintain the present equilibrium. | | Like biological agents, I'd argue any persistent and stable | organization of humans makes predictions and inferences | about the future and takes actions which maximize the | probability of their future existence as a coherent entity. | leetcrew wrote: | in a vacuum yes, the legacy system doesn't have any of | those agent-driven issues. given enough time and freedom | from interference, you can incrementally fix it or | rewrite the whole thing from scratch. but if you leave | out the context of users and management, it doesn't | really matter how you choose to fix it or whether you do | at all. | | in reality, you have customers that are very upset about | the sudden spike in observable defects, you have other | teams mad because they are triaging a bunch of bugs | introduced by your refactor, and you have management | wondering why the fuck you have spent multiple months | working on stuff that has no clear connection to a | marketable feature. you might also have a couple of | seniors/principals who actively oppose your efforts | because they benefit from being the only people who | really understand the mess you are trying to clean up. | and of course, all of that messy people stuff is probably | a large part of why the system is so tangled up to begin | with. | | I certainly don't think political systems are _exactly_ | like computer systems, but it seems like a lot of the | high-level lessons are applicable to both. | Vetch wrote: | > in reality, you have customers that are very upset | about the sudden spike in observable defects...a bunch of | bugs introduced by your refactor | | That's what I meant to capture by agreeing there is | overlap in terms of backwards compatibility and entangled | dependencies. | | The difference is entrenched social systems have greater | agency that goes beyond change induced instability and | into being able to actively predict and favorably mold | their environment. | winternett wrote: | >The difference here is that the existing codebase isn't just | broken, it's structurally resistant to being fixed. | | The key point here then is that the engineers and maintainers | of that original (legacy) system probably did not properly | take scalability and structure into consideration. Maybe the | system was pre-SDLC, which is an important consideration, but | each system is usually a different case, and some tech is | often labeled as "legacy" because it's simply not part of a | "bright and shiny new money-making solution" marketing | plan... ehem. | | It's important to not create the same issues in | redevelopment, and reducing complexity is a key step in | ensuring future compatibility. | | Some systems are not as "legacy" as others. This is also a | vital point to the discussion. | | Most clients aren't concerned with overall cost and lifetime | of service on solutions from what I've observed; Most clients | are people working towards raises and their retirement and | just concerned about not exceeding their max budget and not | generating embarrassment for themselves or for their company. | | This is why one of the first questions I ask of my customers | is how long they intend for the system to be in service for. | | There are several factors of why a proper solutions architect | is necessary throughout the development process of major and | mission-critical systems, but too many PMs decide to just use | the tech stack a team agrees upon, or what's cobbled together | and patched to work, or what worked as an MVP during early | demos. | | We suffer from environmental factors, because budgets are | under-cut, deadlines are always too short, and because people | only care enough to prevent their own headaches. This does | not meet a mark for vital systems though. As we ignorantly | rush towards more and more software dependent operations, the | failures will become more and more amplified in all aspects | (cost, loss, recoverability, technical debt... you name it). | | Keeping everything as simple as possible is now, and always | has been, the better ideal. | moffkalast wrote: | > Fixing your old legacy software takes time, but probably | less time than starting over from scratch. | | Is it though? The current system is the equivalent of some | old unmaintainable shit written in COBOL by a guy who quit | after 30 years while making the codebase as terrible as | possible to maintain job security. | mcguire wrote: | Software development is not always the best metaphor for | everything. | generalizations wrote: | I think you're probably right, however, it also seems like | there's been value in those hard forks simply because we get to | experiment with alternate ways to build the system. Often, it | seems like the original project will take the best ideas from | the fork and integrate them; those are ideas that might not | have been created otherwise. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | Of course. And it's often the same people. Or at least the same | _kinds_ of people. | | None of which tackles the real problem, which is that | corporations, top-down oligarchies, monopolies, unregulated | market economies, bureaucracies, and so on are all examples of | the same problem - which is that hierarchies with wide power | inequalities are mental illness factories. They enable and | cultivate personality disorders. | | As the power inequalities increase, everything turns to shit, | because the people who have real power get more and more | aggressively psychopathic, extractive, demanding, irrational, | and dangerous. | | If you add some negative feedback/oversight and apply some | filtering to keep the crazies out - difficult, but possible - I | strongly suspect you can eventually push _any_ system back to | stability and incline it towards producing whatever form of | growth you 're interested in. | asdfman123 wrote: | And you must ask: who is really driving the public debate to | throw out centralized banks? | | I saw a Winklevoss on Twitter saying something along the lines | of "cash is trash; crypto is the future." Makes sense that he | wants to pump up crypto, because he has a large financial stake | in it. | | There's always going to be someone on top of society making the | rules. The question is this: who do we want it to be? How can | we make sure it's well designed, and accountable to the people? | edot wrote: | I want to be ruled by people who bought into Bitcoin in 2012 | or earlier. They know how to govern best. | intuitionist wrote: | I believe Plato says something very similar. | asdfman123 wrote: | Be warned: any bitcoin post is deep within Poe's Law | territory | edot wrote: | Haha, I sure hope no one takes my post seriously. | amelius wrote: | Your argument would make sense if the smartest people in the | world were developing alternative, highly efficient systems to | replace the current mess. | | Alas. Our smartest people are working on making people click | ads ... | mcculley wrote: | https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence | Hypergraphe wrote: | I've worked, and still work, on large legacy codebases on a | daily basis and I couldn't agree more that total rewrite is not | the solution in most cases and a waste of time and money. | | But, I have also witnessed projets that were poorly engineered | and should have been rewritten or refactored in time to permit | better integration of junior devs, prevent the burnouts and the | people quitting. | | Sometimes, when you don't make the good refactoring on time, | you end up with nobody to maintain your software and you have | to rewrite it. | rubicon33 wrote: | This strikes me as one of the pivotal responsibilities of a | lead developer. It isn't just about pushing new features as | fast as possible, but about ensuring the entire development | stack is (as much as one can be) a pleasure to work on and | in. | | Your point about finding the right time to refactor is spot | on. The answer isn't always "NO", but rather, there's | something of an art and intuition to understanding if a huge | refactor is really a net positive. | | Lead developers should understand that failure to do this | puts the business at risk, since hiring and maintaining | competent developers is critical, and nobody is going to want | to stick around to work on an outdated, unnecessarily complex | system. | winternett wrote: | Even considering the occasional refactor, it's still a lot | less costly over time than this new throw-away microservices | economy in many cases. | | First and foremost, the problem should dictate the solution | of course, but each cloud host service provider has their own | unique brand of microservices that don't make a large | distributed system easy/cost-effective to migrate after it's | initial development as well. CSPs now do a lot to lock | clients into their specific platform for life. | | The monthly compute and storage bills alone are now converted | to utility pricing also, so there are far too many ways in | which those prices can rise and balloon unexpectedly over | time that must also be considered also in all fairness. | | The modern Internet is turning into a wasteland of scams, | where only the rich make money after a huge buy-in, and it's | sickening to see the scams and price gouging that occurs just | to launch a simple web site, even with open source tools. | Terms of service literally mean nothing, and they can't be | enforced our upheld because of the massive financial wealth | and lack of support monopolies grow into, and because | regulators are also tech investors. | | Major interests are working hard to raise the entry barrier | and to shut out free and reasonably priced services that | allow control. They are working hard to acquire highly useful | tools as well so they can put a price tag on them. The more | we give the wrong people vast sums of money the worse it will | get, and the less options we'll have. | delusional wrote: | I don't think the argument is that transferrable. As a | developer you don't really live within the legacy systems. At | most you're a politician negotiating between the different | component parts. Society is different. | | I don't like DeFi, but I get what they're feeling. It feels | like society has left us behind. Like anything we could ever | hope to try is already accounted for and defeated before the | effort even begins. You can get into politics, but the forces | that broke the current set of politicians will break you as | well. You can try and win from within the system, but that | entails doing exactly what you're against. | | I want to write software, man. I like making the computer do | stuff, and I also like it when that stuff is socially | meaningful, but it's impossible. The set of incentives and | rules we have set up means that I don't get to do that. I don't | enjoy knowing that the people i rely on are treated like | fungible garbage. In that light I understand how it can seem | appealing to change the world by writing software. I just don't | think it's going to happen. | Nevermark wrote: | Well everything _ALREADY IS_ software. :) | | Loosely speaking. Software in a computer, or in our brains. | | With the "software in a computer" camp ascending rapidly, at | the expense of the only alternative "software in a brain". | | So we _already_ need to solve all these problems with | software _soon_. Or with a large amount of software as a | required ingredient, anyway. | | (I realize some people don't think machines will ever | outthink biology (for ... hands and head waving around ... | "Reasons! Man. Reasons!"). But, most of us probably agree | that this is a loose goose first approximation of the long | term trend we are in since the transistor, with no end in | sight.) | robotresearcher wrote: | > Like anything we could ever hope to try is already | accounted for and defeated before the effort even begins. | | Gay marriage, the fall of communism, civil rights, universal | health care (in every rich country but one), women's rights. | | Don't forget about the very important real progress being | made. | noahth wrote: | A very large fraction of DeFi supporters do not regard all | of those as desirable progress. | mcguire wrote: | Are you talking about the same Decentralized Finance? | thebean11 wrote: | What is "very large"? What fraction of legacy bankers | regard all of those as desirable progress? That's a | pretty silly ad-hominem. | pydry wrote: | Part of the reason you got gay marriage but not universal | healthcare is that gay marriage doesn't threaten corporate | interests. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | 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 back on that front. At this | point it's clear that the people who stoked that anger | and fear over decades no longer have control of how to | direct it (if they ever did). | nemothekid wrote: | 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. | dv_dt wrote: | I interpret the events as Obama did pass the Heritage | foundation version and it passed because it was more | acceptable than any public option let alone universal | healthcare. | wyre wrote: | Having health care tied to employment is a corporate | interest. Corporations need workers and everyone needs | health care, so by making health care come chained to | employment it keeps workers stuck in their jobs. | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | Health insurance is what holds back universal health | care, along with hospitals themselves. Both of them are | incentivized to raise costs for consumers. | kelseyfrog wrote: | Is it possible to de-capitalize heathcare? Not in this | economy. | throwawayboise wrote: | Almost afraid to ask, but how is racism holding back | health care? | mnhn1 wrote: | Johnathan Metzl explores it a bit in his book Dying of | Whiteness[0]. Here's an example of something he described | in an interview[1] about the book and his other work: | | >Now I will say that some of the individual stories--I | mean, one story that jumps out at me was I was doing | interviews about the Affordable Care Act, and I was | interviewing very, very medically ill white men who | really would have benefited--this is in Tennessee, and in | other places in the South where they didn't expand the | Medicaid, they didn't create the competitive insurance | marketplaces--and I said like, "Hey, you guys are dying | because you don't have healthcare. Why don't you get down | with the Affordable Care Act? What's your reason?" | | >And I would say a number of people told me things like, | one man told me, "There's no way I'm supporting a system | that would benefit," as he said, "Mexicans and welfare | queens,"--like total racist stereotypes. And so, even | though he would have benefited--and his guy, ultimately | over the three years of interviews, he passed away | because he didn't have medical care--so he was literally | willing to die rather than sign up for a program that he | thought was gonna benefit immigrants. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_of_Whiteness [1] | https://hashtagcauseascene.com/podcast/jonathan-metzl/ | zepto wrote: | Is it clear that the guy really believed that Obamacare | would benefit _him_? | | It's not him being a racist if he genuinely thought that | the program would benefit immigrants and not benefit him. | lvh wrote: | Not OP, but I assume the argument is something to the | tune of: healthcare should be universal to make progress, | universal healthcare would disproportionally benefit the | poor, the poor are disproportionally of color. | oivey wrote: | You lost the word "universal" in "universal healthcare" | in the comment you're replying to. There are many ways | racism impedes the push for universal healthcare. One is | the classic fact that it is a welfare program, and that | spurs the comments and thoughts about welfare queens and | "young bucks." | mcbishop wrote: | When I hear "welfare queen," I think of a _black_ woman. | Because I 'm racist (sadly). From that, the racist idea | that free services (e.g. universal healthcare) are unduly | exploited by black people (or immigrants). | zepto wrote: | I'm sorry you are a racist. | | How does your racism cause you to equate welfare Queen | with black woman? I'd have thought that was more | connected to the media using it that way. | sangnoir wrote: | 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... | zepto wrote: | 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. | maerF0x0 wrote: | I've never understood the reason we even have marriage | defined in government at all, and thusly would include | "gay" marriage (all marriage is marriage if it's | undefined)... | | We don't have a government definition of prayer or baptism, | but for some reason we have have codified that one | religious practice into our government? Doesn't make a lot | of sense to me. Also why do they get varyingly get tax | incentives or disincentives? | | Maybe its the armchair libertarian in me, but it seems like | we should just remove any formal definition of marriage | from the government and instead normalize more power of | attorney style actions. | amelius wrote: | I think governments generally want to impress their own | values onto the people. Marriage is often part of that. | eadmund wrote: | The reason that the State has historically cared about | marriage is family formation. That's all. | | Given that 'marriage' nowadays has nothing to do with | family formation, it makes sense for the State to get out | of that business. | JasonFruit wrote: | How would _that_ increase government power? It 's like | you aren't even trying to grow government. | Animats wrote: | _I 've never understood the reason we even have marriage | defined in government at all_ | | Some countries handle marriage as a religious thing. | Israel works that way, and it's really complicated. | burntoutfire wrote: | Marriage is not a religious practice. Proof: non- | religious people get married all the time. | nostrebored wrote: | Yeah and neither are Christmas or Easter! | handrous wrote: | Kinda true. Especially Christmas. | maerF0x0 wrote: | > 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, perhaps but not necessarily | "civic partnership". Once we recognize the part that | government should be involved with we can start to remove | all religious connotations because it's not the <term> | that we're "attacking". | | Christians want to say marriage is exactly a man and | woman w/ a clergyman ? Fine they can do that inside their | building because that's not a legal thing. But if a | Christian wants to say "civic partnership" is a specific | thing, well that's too bad because they dont get to | define law (at least not directly). | themacguffinman wrote: | That sounds politically dumber. "Marriage" has been | normalized for centuries/millennia but now you think you | can just quickly normalize another term before we solve | this equal rights thing? You know, just a quick errand | before we restore equal rights: change the prevailing | culture and change definitions throughout a complex set | of laws. | | This is exactly the junior developer mindset described in | the thread parent: restoring equal rights to gay people | is a problem but first let's spin our wheels inventing a | different terminology and taxonomy for marriage and | upending legal precedent and existing case law about | marriage. | maerF0x0 wrote: | I'm just trying to be pragmatic that one side doesnt seem | to be willing to cede any ground, we could just simply | move the fight elsewhere. | | it is both equal rights if "everyone/anyone can get | married" or "no one can because it's not defined" (in the | eyes of the government). | | If people aren't willing to accept the 2nd case then I'm | guessing they dont actually want equal rights so much as | public(governmental) recognition of their status. | themacguffinman wrote: | Yeah I'm saying it's not pragmatic, it's the opposite of | pragmatic. Of course people want governmental | recognition, many hetero married couples want it and | already rely on it. Gay couples also want equal rights on | top of that. They want both. | | This is cutting the proverbial baby in half and | redefining the legal institution so no one gets what they | want, that will go well in a democracy /s | [deleted] | gumby wrote: | I mostly agree with you but there are certain useful | functions. It's an optional service the state provides to | many many* people with negligible transaction fee, as | with, for example, maintaining the roads, air traffic | control, or food safety. Those things help you even if | you never leave your home or never fly. | | First it's a default mechanism for saying things like "if | I get hurt this person can come see me in / ask questions | about me in the hospital". Also "we have joint economic | activity so friction should be removed". | | Second, kids can't necessarily articulate for themselves | so it's a default way of saying "here's a couple of | people who are helping me and others can be disregarded | by default" | | And it acts as a dash pot for both entering into and | especially leaving these set of default rights and | obligations. | | * Marriage should be universally available. I've never | liked saying that I "supported gay marriage" -- the | correct phrase is that "I want us to stop discriminating | against people in the case of marriage" | maerF0x0 wrote: | > It's an optional service the state provides to many | many* | | This is essentially the power of attorney portion of my | post. Perhaps it would be more inclusive if we just had a | way to grant certain checkboxes and options to certain | individuals. eg I could grant financial decisions to my | mother, friend, cousin, and could even give a time | limited grant to a girlfriend like "For the next year you | can make life and death medical decisions for me" or | whatever. | | Sadly i dont see it happening because our government is | so archaic | lupire wrote: | You are describing civil unions. Legal marriage is just | religous baggage. | ska wrote: | > or some reason we have have codified that one religious | practice into our government? | | We haven't really codified the religious practice so much | as codified the civil law assumptions around it. | | It is weird in many ways, and it is the most complicated | (and misunderstood) contract that many/most people will | execute in their lives and it's done very implicitly. | | On the other hand, if you didn't have the contractual | side of marriage standardized, a whole other can of worms | gets opened. If we didn't have a "standard contract" | there are a crapton of things you would have to deal with | individually. | | Before gay marriage, some same-sex couples worked pretty | hard to try and get as close to the marriage contracts as | they could through contracts, which as I understand it | was pretty expensive (5 figures typically) and ultimately | not entirely successful especially as there are other | implicit aspects that run counter to it. | kube-system wrote: | Marriage is a contract. Governments regulate the | enforcement of contracts. That's why they're involved. | | The religious part of marriage is entirely optional. | jagged-chisel wrote: | 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. | kube-system wrote: | Sure they do, in that the framework for writing those | contracts is guided by the governments guidelines for | what constitutes a valid contract. Just because a | government isn't micromanaging the process doesn't mean | it isn't "regulated". | ska wrote: | 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 would need independent representation. | | I imagine that if we actually did this, fairly standard | versions would start floating around and drop the costs - | but the worst case of this is essentially the status quo | with a few hundred in legal fees for review & education. | Come to think of it, that wouldn't be terrible as it | would reduce the amount of surprise in divorce. | | On the other hand, it only really works in one | jurisdiction so still problematic. | maerF0x0 wrote: | > Marriage is a contract. | | The really interesting thing is that marriage is a | contract that changes over time (as the government | modifies law), without either party re-consenting to the | new agreement. It's part of why I will probably never get | married, it technically represents infinite risk. | sangnoir wrote: | > without either party re-consenting to the new agreement | | This can also happen time with non-marriage contracts, | which is why prudent drafters include severability | clauses | maerF0x0 wrote: | > prudent drafters include severability clauses | | yes, but we dont get to draft the law/contract that is | marriage -- that's done by law makers. IIRC even a | pre/postnup cannot contradict law. | kube-system wrote: | Still, this is not different than other contracts. | Negotiability is not an essential element of any other | contract. Nor can other contracts contradict law. | joenot443 wrote: | I think the difficulty is that for the vast majority of | American history, marriages weren't really performed | without any religious connotation. Hell, even legally, | from what I understand, there was a time where marriages | _had_ to be performed by a clergyman of some kind. Now, | you're right, the religious association is technically | optional, but it's worth remembering that for a very, | very long time, marriage was as much a religious | agreement as it was contractual. | handrous wrote: | Got married in the '00s in the US and IIRC in that state | it was still the case that, to be valid, you had to have | an ordained minister or certain officials (a judge) sign | the paper. | | Now, would anyone ever check? Nah. Unless litigation | (divorce, inheritance, whatever) came up and someone | thought invalidating the original marriage might somehow | help their case, though even then, dunno if it'd really | matter. | munificent wrote: | I _100%_ sympathize with this feeling too. But the pattern I | see over and over again is: | | 1. Society is getting worse. | | 2. I'm really good at writing software. | | 3. Therefore the solution is to write software to fix | society. | | That chain of logic is simply the streetlight effect [1] writ | large: | | _A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under | a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he | lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight | together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is | sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that | he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is | searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the | light is"._ | | It doesn't matter how good you are at software if you don't | have a software problem. Many problems cannot effectively be | transformed into software problems. Instead of continuing to | search for our keys where the light is, we should be bringing | the light to where we lost our keys. That means accepting | that we have to get outside of our comfort zone and improve | our non-software skills. (This _does not_ mean immediately | thinking "I'll write software to bring the light to where I | lost my keys!") | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect | posix86 wrote: | 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 traditional methods - because the issue of | trust falls away. And, they are implemented in a way that | is transparent to everyone. | munificent wrote: | Computing doesn't automate thought. It only automates | processing data. In order to process anything, data has | to be deliberately loaded from the real world into a | computer. And in order for that processing to | _accomplish_ anything, a human has to take the results | and take action on them. | | If you think most social problems stem from people simply | not knowing the right thing to do, then, sure, crunching | some numbers might help. But my belief is that most | social problems come from understanding the people around | us, and having the right social structures and psychology | to do the right thing. Computers will help with neither | of those. | | It's like having a nonfunctioning trackpad or display. No | amount of software is going to fix that. | WJW wrote: | 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. | bb88 wrote: | That reminds me of an old joke: | | Q: How does an engineer cure constipation? | | A: He works it out with a pencil. | | Of course in neither sense of the connotation of the | punchline, can the engineer cure his constipation. No, he'd | need to see a medical professional to do that. | | I'm old enough to remember that the great promise of the | internet in China was as a backdoor to free speech. That | was until China contracted companies, many of them | American, to help construct The Great Firewall. It was just | this year that DuckDuckGo stopped giving results for "Tank | Man" in the Free US because Bing didn't want to offend | China. | | Facebook is being used as platform for misinformation, both | for political and vaccine related. Facebook was supposed to | connect us together, instead it's driven us apart. | | And now it's blockchain/crytpo/defi which will save us all. | | So in 2021 the joke is: | | Q: How does a crypto fanatic cure constipation? | | A: He offers shitcoins and convinces other people to mine | for them. | theduder99 wrote: | haha nice modern version! I originally heard the first | version as a mathemetician instead of an engineer. | darawk wrote: | I think a better framing would be that the way to force | society to fix itself is to use software to demonstrate how | things could be different. | | DeFi and crypto have already forced major changes to TradFi | by exactly this mechanism, and they will continue to do so, | even if DeFi doesn't succeed on its own terms. | shebek wrote: | What this line of reasoning seems to be missing is that | society seems to be getting worse largely _because_ of | software. | ipaddr wrote: | Seems to and getting worse are two different islands. | Things are better than ever for all progressive issues. | More people are living healthier and wealthier than ever. | Crime, wars are all down. | | How is software making society worse? | shebek wrote: | By concentrating power in the hands of unelected, | unaccountable institutions. | | By fragmenting the cognitive capacities of regular human | beings. | | By letting hatred and insanity reach a global audience. | | By diverting countless person-hours of intelligent labor | towards largely useless endeavours. | | By becoming an opaque intermediary to an increasing | fraction of all social interactions. | munificent wrote: | _> Things are better than ever for all progressive | issues._ | | Except for economic inequality and the climate. | | More poor have been lifted out of poverty, but even so | the gap between the richest and poorest is growing. | That's a problem not just because it means the poorest | could be doing even better than they are, but because | inequality is itself a massively destabilizing force that | undermines trust and weakens the social fabric. | | Our air and water is OK to consume, and the amount of | forest cover in Western countries is currently alright. | But the diversity and density of natural life, especially | animal life, is plummeting. We are living in a Silent | Spring right now but it snuck up so fast most of us | didn't notice. I remember how _loud_ the outdoors were | when I saw a children. Insects buzzing, frogs croaking, | fish splashing, rodents rustling. When I go into the | woods these days, it _looks_ mostly the same, but it 's | so much quieter. | munificent wrote: | I don't think you can aggregate all of society's changes | into a single "worse" or "better" metric. It's like | trying to decide if cheese is a better food than apples. | | What I think you can say is that software has had many | good effects in various ways for various members of | society and many bad effects for various members. Those | effects and members are sometimes overlapping, sometimes | not. | | There is no clear line between baby and bathwater. It's | like trying to decide if iron or wheat has made society | better or worse. I don't even think it's a particularly | interesting question. | | A better question to me is, _given where we are now_ , | what incremental steps can we make it better, and for | whom? | jacobr1 wrote: | And even more confusing, the positive and negative | impacts are quite likely to be second or third order | phenomena. Managing unintended consequences of complex | systems is no easy task, even in hindsight. | | > A better question to me is, given where we are now, | what incremental steps can we make it better, and for | whom? | | This is indeed a better question, and perhaps the best we | can do in many situations. But we have plenty of systems | where small changes have large secondary consequences or | conversely small changes are just drowned out by the fact | that the system is in some like of local minima | halostatue wrote: | Or is it getting worse because of how the software is | used? I will grant that some software seems to only be | usable in weaponized ways (e.g., biometric identification | at scale), but something like Facebook could be used for | _good_ purposes (connecting people) if it weren't driven | by the wrong metrics (e.g., advertising, surveillance, | etc.). | hotpotamus wrote: | I've heard the streetlight one before but I also like "when | you're a hammer, then every problem is a nail". I hadn't | thought of it this way though perhaps I had felt it. It | feels like this is the dream for AR/VR - to create a | software defined reality that you can escape to. | mesozoic wrote: | The new AR/VR reality will become as shitty as the | current one and assuredly do it much faster. | akolbe wrote: | Here is another version of that story, as told by Idries | Shah. He attributes it to the Middle Eastern Mulla | Nasrudin figure, and gives it a metaphysical | interpretation. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasreddin | | _A neighbor found Nasrudin down on his knees looking for | something._ | | _" What have you lost, Mulla?"_ | | _" My key," said Nasrudin._ | | _After a few minutes of searching, the other man said, | "Where did you drop it?"_ | | _" At home."_ | | _" Then why, for heaven's sake, are you looking here?"_ | | _" There is more light here."_ | | According to Shah, the German clown Karl Valentin | (1882-1948) used to act the story out on stage. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Valentin | Shorel wrote: | Except: Law is code. And we run these programs. We are the | processors. | | And I mean real laws, the ones written in congress. | | Whatever we are doing, in a sense, is trying to sidestep | these laws. | mavhc wrote: | Real laws are maths, slightly real laws are physics. | Lawyer laws are just written to cause you to have to hire | lawyers | mcguire wrote: | I usually refer to the streetlight effect as the | statisticians' error, or the economist's error---those | being two major fields where the data you can get may only | be a very poor proxy for the problem. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | 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 must provide the people with an alternative | that's at least as good. As underdogs, we can't afford to | out-hire the banks, so the only way forward is to be more | effective on a smaller manpower budget--which probably | means leaning on crowd-sourced solutions mediated by | software. | | It's easy to fall into the trap you're describing, but that | doesn't mean that that's what is happening. It looks like | the battles here are genuinely shaping up to be fought in | software. | ipaddr wrote: | Before internet advertising everyone was concerned with | newspapers being all ads, subway ads, billboards, naming | stadiums, ads on buses, flyers being put everywhere, mail | advertising plus everything you see on tv. | | Those things still exist. Focusing only on digital | advertising when ads are being pushed everywhere is | missing the point. | fragmede wrote: | I get where defi is coming from, and the regulations | _are_ onerous, but also those regulations were hard- | fought for, and came about on the backs of real problems | for real people, often by being exploited by people most | accurately described as conmen. Caveat emptor, sure, but | on the way from "investing your play money" to someone | close to retirement's 401k, there's a much bigger | pitfall. | | The "battles" are shaping up to be fought the same way | they were previously - regulations forcing big huge heavy | disclaimers on financial products, cryptocoin-based or | otherwise, that state that the returns stated are not | actually guaranteed. | dcow wrote: | 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 example.) | | No, software can't fix all of the institutional and | political problems, but it can present a more efficient | modern system that helps generate the political clout | people will need on the battlefield. We have systemic | problems and no they're not all going to go away with | better software. But we need catalysts that motivate | people, win hearts, and pierce through the apathetic | menagerie. | supernovae wrote: | 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. | walterbell wrote: | _> You 're not going to replace people problems with | tech. Period._ | | Sadly, there will always be people who benefit from | misattribution of a people problem to tech. | secabeen wrote: | I agree with a lot of this. A lot of techies are used to | software and customer environments where vendors and | customers work together for shared success. Finance is | not that sort of space. Much of it is fundamentally zero- | sum and adversarial. It needs a different style of | oversight than SAAS. | UncleMeat wrote: | How would decentralized finance affect the advertising | driven business model of web applications? | fragmede wrote: | Micropayments have been suggested since Internet was | young, but now that's available on top of the right | cryptocurrent (eg SOL). Whether that's _actually_ a model | people want (vs saying they want) remains to be seen, but | Substack seems to be doing well enough for their writers. | 3 cents from each of 100,000 likes on Twitter /Insta/tt | starts to add up for those with a large enough following | to make several of those a month. If the transaction | costs are close enough to nil to make that worthwhile for | everyone involved, that's a different web than we've | grown up with, with 30-cent per-transaction fees being | the industry standard for credit cards. | | If Web3 becomes popular, it frees the online tip jar from | a particular platform (eg Patreon) and decentralizes it | so anyone can set it up for themselves, with far lower | network effects required. | DenseComet wrote: | Micropayments are an interesting topic. I don't want to | pay 5 cents per article I read, I'd much rather pay $10 a | month for unlimited articles, even if I end up paying | more than I would with the first scheme just because with | the first one, I make a decision to spend money with | every click. I know there are projects trying to | streamline this, but it really should be as close to the | UX of the latter as possible, pay a set amount and never | think about how many things I can read. | shebek wrote: | I though the point of personal computing was to make it | _easy_ to think, not to make it _unnecessary_? | | If you think the firehose of self-referential click-bait | needs to be made even more addictive, I'm really not sure | what Web3 can offer. | | OTOH, _reintroducing the friction of having to decide | whether the next click is worth your time and attention | (i.e. money)_ is where it 's at. | int_19h wrote: | I've been using Blendle for a long time now, and one | interesting thing that I've noticed is that it _doesn 't_ | make me think hard about the decision to spend money | every time I read some article, even though that's | technically what it is. | yao420 wrote: | I quite liked the coinhive approach of having the user | run a blockchain workload as an alternative to ads. The | project and economics didn't work out for them but it was | an interesting approach. | entropicdrifter wrote: | Perhaps even more relevantly, how would _any_ sort of | decentralization help when the issue is an excessively | unregulated market simply moving to the logical | conclusion of its evolution? | indigochill wrote: | > 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 better thing builds up and the | incumbent is disrupted. | | I'm a firm believer disruption of big tech will work that | way. PeerTube is worse than YouTube in many ways, except | that it's federated. Mastodon is harder to use than | Twitter for the typical user. I believe in both of them | because I believe the one thing they inarguably do better | (putting power back in the hands of the people through | federation) is sufficiently significant, especially as | faith continues to erode in the status quo gatekeepers. | r00fus wrote: | > 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). | | How in the world is DeFi supposed to help this? From my | POV DeFi makes it worse (advertising funding can now be | untraceable/unauditable). | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | If the entire platform (gmail, etc) is funded by ads, | then removing the ads destroys the platform. In that | space, advertising is a necessary evil, and the best we | can do it try to make it less onerous. | | But if you're supporting your platform by any other | means, you can just go without ads entirely. And DeFi is | all about finding ways to support things that you like | without giving untrustworthy middle men like Google or a | bank custody over it. | | When a server gives you something other than what you | asked it for with the aim of altering your behavior, | that's called malware. We tolerate it in the form of ads | because there aren't good alternatives available. If DeFi | can fund an alternative, internet advertising can go die | in a fire. | colonelxc wrote: | Advertising clearly wont "go die in a fire", no matter | how frictionless the payments are. There was a | conversation on hacker news just a few days ago about | 'smart' TVs all getting ads, spying on the user, etc. | | This is an example where people do have a way to pay for | TVs (no need for microtransactions, TVs cost hundreds of | dollars already!). But the TV makers have decided they | can make more money by adding Ads, so why would they not? | | This happened with cable TV too. You pay for the TV | already, as a subscription even, why do you also get Ads? | Because the cable company gets more money. | | Can companies live while just charging for their | services? absolutely. Will a lot of companies try to add | additional revenue flows anyways? Also yes. In theory a | company could compete on a 'no ads' platform. In | practice, industry after industry realizes that they can | just make more money at the turn of a switch. DeFi | doesn't fix that. The advertisers are still going to come | calling with their checkbooks. | | I grant that DeFi does have some potential for | micropayments that are hard with traditional finance. | That could help make some blogs and small things ad free. | But my point is that making payments has not at all | stopped ads from invading every other industry. TV ads | are not because your purchase had too much finance | overhead. The advertisers will still be there, checkbook | in hand. | Ntrails wrote: | >This happened with cable TV too. You pay for the TV | already, as a subscription even, why do you also get Ads? | | Drives me batshit that amazon does this on Prime. Play | the fucking film you bastards | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | Too bad we can't just fork a copy without ads and use | that instead. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | Frictionless payments are a relatively small part of it. | The bigger part is figuring out who needs to be paid for | what. | | Consider gitcoin, for instance. Yeah, it processes | payments, but more importantly it tracks developer | reputation, user donations, and facilitates aggregate | decision making (re: voting on how to spend the money). | | Are you saying that eventually, the users will vote to | have ads included in their open source software? I think | not. It's only when somebody is able to exploit a | privileged position as owner-of-the-medium that you get | greed-driven service degradation like that. But we're | learning how to build ownerless mediums. Whatever | problems they have, I don't think they'll be the same-old | middleman problems that we're used to. | Y_Y wrote: | What you describe reminds me of the (phenomenally | successful) work of Douglas Englebart. He described his | motivation as something similar to what you have, but of | course with a more optimistic perspective. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart#Guiding_phi | l... | teucris wrote: | I think there's a nuance here in the sense that progress | happens both inside the established system and outside it - | grassroots campaigns, protests, local initiatives, etc. I | think the key issue is that it seems like so many smart | people are looking to solve things from the outside rather | than involve themselves with the current system, and we need | to move that pendulum back quite a bit. | delusional wrote: | 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 the system. It's the last pressure | valve. Kept just out of reach so that people won't use it, | but highlighted to make sure that you aren't allowed to | change the system without first doing it. | | I think the system is whack, and that's the reason people | don't want to fight it. They've given up. | mcguire wrote: | But grassroots campaigns and protests do result in | change. Not quickly enough for many people, but if your | alternative is burning everything down.... | hellbannedguy wrote: | Nonviolent protests don't seem to get much change. | | People get angry over years of absolute no change. | | It seems like there's a happy medium, as long as no one | is killed. | | (The media usually sensationalizes the protest too. Hell | ---CVS planned on closing 200 California stores years | ago. How do I know? I just know. I heard a spokesman for | CVS claim that theft was the reason. When asked about | which exact stores were hit hard--she didn't have an | answer. | | When there's a violent protest, and the disenfranchised | guys break a window and steal. The tv stations play the | same isolated incident over, and over again.) | delusional wrote: | Grassroots campaigns and protests let you change the | small stuff around the edges. The system provides you | with just enough knobs to play with to keep you oblivious | to all the ones you can't. | kelseyfrog wrote: | Construct an self-reinforcing reality aimed at | dismantling the current enabling structures. That's | exactly as hard or as easy as it sounds. | kiliantics wrote: | 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. | noworriesnate wrote: | Interesting, that reminds me of psychohistory from the | Federation series by Isaac Asimov. Where would I find | that literature? | Zoo3y wrote: | and perhaps more frustrating to smart people looking to do | good realize they are just one person. Huge, structural | changes to society involve everyone. | kelseyfrog wrote: | This feeling of frustration is familiar. What helped me | was shifting the way I approached the problem. Rather | than tasking myself with manipulating social structures | directly, I've found joy in teaching others to recognize | the structures, recognize the processes by which their | reality is maintained, and formulate tools to expose | their weaknesses and dismantle them. Ideas spread like | seeds in the wind. Our collective mental soil is so ready | to accept them. | s7r wrote: | Really appreciate this sub-thread, including @Zoo3y and | @teucris' comments. I share a similar perspective. In the | case of this article, I feel like a lot of the behaviors | come back to rent-seeking -- here's a perspective that | might resonate with you: | | https://rebrand.ly/end-of-rent | | If this interests, send me a note and let's | connect/introduce! | jjtheblunt wrote: | I think your point is stronger than you worded it, by saying | junior developers, as the observation holds for developers | period, when faced with a mess. | ErrantX wrote: | Working in finance myself, I totally agree with you on the | regulators lint. Everyone arguing regulators are evil is | genuinely tech and finance savvy. The regulator is not there to | protect them. They are there to protect the vast majority - not | only from the outright criminals but also the slightly evil | financial services companies (see the Wonga and payday loans | debacle in the UK). | | Say what you like about regulators - and they regularly mess up | big - but they ensure that 99% of consumer finance companies | have the cash to back up deposits because they are forced to! | | We don't necessarily need more regulation, but more of the | right regulation would be good. | tcgv wrote: | I agree that regulation can and should be a good thing, to | protect the participants of the financial system. But in the | past decades we've seen a (lobbied) shift towards | deregulation, with catastrophic results: | | > Say what you like about regulators - and they regularly | mess up big - but they ensure that 99% of consumer finance | companies have the cash to back up deposits because they are | forced to! | | In the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis not long ago the US | government was forced to bail out several banks, basically | transferring the cost of that mess to tax payers, so I | disagree with this statement. | dkasper wrote: | I think you're missing a key point that because of the 2008 | crisis the regulations were updated. Bank reserves are | higher now than pre-2008. So in fact this is basically like | the OP said, regulators regularly mess up, and then update | the regulation. | lupire wrote: | IIRC the Fed is currently removing reserve requirementa | because they don't believe they are useful. | | Banks have reserves now because the government printed so | much money to give them that they can't put it to any | use. | solveit wrote: | > Everyone arguing regulators are evil is genuinely tech and | finance savvy. The regulator is not there to protect them. | They are there to protect the vast majority | | I agree. But a funny thing I wanted to remark on is that this | dynamic makes defi (and any other esoterica) better (or less | worse, depending on your POV) than it "deserves" to be. It | essentially functions as a less-regulated side track for | those savvy enough to use it, and this self-selecting | population is one that does not need as much regulation as | the general population. Of course, this is until defi gets | packaged into nice, consumer-friendly products you can buy | with a couple of swipes, which is already happening. | ErrantX wrote: | Well yes true. Arguably the whole NFT thing is an example | of that already. | | But I get your point; it is reasonable for savvy people to | have a play ground for more risk. | tcgv wrote: | To be fair, this argument is only valid when targeting people | from outside of the areas of expertise / niches involved: | | > All of the current histrionics that we hear from | [[INSERT_ANTI_ESTABLISHMENT_TREND_HERE]]-- you know what they | remind me of? They remind me of what I hear from junior | developers when they're tasked with fixing an antiquated, | broken software system | | The argument will become invalid if, say, a "Senior" in a field | is defending the anti-establishment trend or movement within | that field. | notpachet wrote: | Honestly in fairness to junior developers, I should have left | the "junior" label out of my original post. We're all guilty | of this by varying degrees. | Lamad123 wrote: | This comment is AWS-blessed and AWS-sponsored | shadowgovt wrote: | If a financial system becomes widely-adopted, people will | expect it to do things that benefit them. This is the question | for most of the DeFi solutions I see these days. | | Fiat currency has all kinds of risks and weaknesses, but there | are some strengths that I don't see, say, a Bitcoin addressing. | The most immediate one to my mind is that if money is stolen, | there is a central authority to make the victim whole. Because | the authority owns the money supply, they can even do it via a | back-door tax on the value everyone holds if the stolen | property is not yet recovered (i.e. they can just print more | money). If someone steals my BTC, it's just gone. There's no | higher authority to appeal to to correct the theft. | yourabstraction wrote: | But there's no reason consumer protections, user friendly | addressing, and other features can't be built on layers above | the base crypto protocols. For the monetary system to be | optimally flexible the base layer should be fully neutral and | permissionless. Then there's nothing stopping people from | building crypto banks on top of those base protocols, which | could add in consumer protections like refunds. Think about | the internet, it's powerful because the base layers are | neutral, allowing for the free flow of information. | twofornone wrote: | >Then there's nothing stopping people from building crypto | banks on top of those base protocols, which could add in | consumer protections like refunds | | It seems the centralization is unavoidable if people want | the protections of our modern financial system... | IIAOPSW wrote: | "Dying is easy young man, governing's harder." Something like | that. | beebmam wrote: | Certainly the Taliban is finding that out in Afghanistan. And | there is tremendous suffering among people who don't deserve | that situation. | oblio wrote: | Maybe they wouldn't be there without almost 5 decades of | foreign invasions... | _alex_ wrote: | It's not a coincidence that a lot of cryptocurrency projects | are started and maintained by relatively young and | inexperienced programmers. | circlefavshape wrote: | Yes, yes, and yes again. This goes for _every_ "revolutionary" | thing, from a new codebase to DeFi to an actual revolution. | MrStonedOne wrote: | People don't want to break free of regulators, they want to | break free of visa and mastercard playing moral judge on who | you can send money too. | rland wrote: | It's interesting to look at things from a controls perspective. | | An economy (any kind of economy!) is just a feedback control | system. | | Generally, when you're choosing a feedback controller, you have | two options: PID, where you have a set of 3 "dumb" rules, and all | you have to do is tune the gains on those dumb rules. Or MPC, | where you need to actually build a model of the system you are | controlling, and then you can optimally plan to control it the | future. | | In general, MPC is quite good, much better than PID, if you have | a great model of your system. It fails when the model is bad, or | when you can't determine your state with accuracy. | | PID can be very good -- for systems with very fast dynamics and | response times, it is better than MPC, because you don't spend a | lot of time in the feedback loop evaluating the model, and you | don't need to worry about modeling at all ("model-free") | | I think of an economy (very broadly) the same way. The mythical | "free market" that everyone talks about is like a PID controller | over the whole economy. It's a simple rule, supply and demand, | and you can keep prices under control quite well with just a PID | controller. But PID can fail spectacularly, too, and cause | instability. | | In general, you know when instability is happening when you look | at a graph of your state variables and it looks like an | exponential with a positive coefficient [1]. I'm sure you can see | where I'm going with this: _every single chart_ we can draw about | our economy right now looks like an exponential. Energy, probably | the most base measurement, looks like an exponential. This is bad | [2] and everyone knows it, which I think is the source of a lot | of the modern ennui. | | Our old MPC models failed spectacularly, because we didn't have a | good way of modeling the whole economy, we only had very granular | and incomplete information about the markets, and we didn't have | a way of actually solving the optimization problem. The obvious | missing link here is the computer. | | I agree wholeheartedly with the author, and I think it's really | valuable to bring up that we already have central planning going | on in the form of the corporation. There are thousands of people | whose work is completely decoupled from profit and who engage in | long term planning at a scale larger than the market they operate | in. | | What he describes is like a cascade controller, where the inner | loops occur in the linear supply/demand region and the outer | loops are a smarter model-informed controller. Rather than | pretend like the outer loops are just like the inner loops (a | pie-in-the-sky libertarian view) or pretend like the inner loops | are just like the outer loops (the anti-capitalist view) we | should be thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of both. | Right now we're very good at the inner loop but we're basically | randomly flailing about with the outer loop. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function | | [2] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ | cblconfederate wrote: | Markets have existed without empire overlords thoughout history | though. Egyptians did not have to enforce trade rules to their | neighbours, and despite whatever clashes everyone traded with | each other in the mediterranean. It is exogenous rules that | required the protection of an empire, such as the raids of | pirates, or the threat from another empire. Since our current | world order started after WW2, the governments have grown, but so | have the monopolies, and we ve never seen them split, we just | take them for granted after a while (e.g. mastercard/visa). In | fact, if anything, government's role has been to pick the winners | that better cooperate with them in order to ensure their mutual | survival. It may be true that markets eventually do grow their | own hierarchies, but this does not mean that imposing rules | externally a priori is any good. | colechristensen wrote: | There absolutely was regulation in Bronze Age markets. There | were taxes and tax breaks for favored merchants, there were | embargoes and wars fought over goods. | cblconfederate wrote: | > regulation | | by whom? | colechristensen wrote: | The local king / mayor | cblconfederate wrote: | sure but what about inter-kingdom trade (and even, not | all cities belonged to an empire) | colechristensen wrote: | You taxed and regulated at ports of entry | cblconfederate wrote: | That's not a regulated market, you can sell elsewhere | mmaunder wrote: | Wait until the free money stops. Then you'll have real problems | on your hands. If folks are whining now in an economy with a rate | of inflation higher than most long term debt, and the biggest | market rally since the 90s, wait until the party stops. Then | you're actually going to have something to cry about. | | Incredible how people in developed countries have no idea or | appreciation for the freedoms and opportunities they're | surrounded by. | betwixthewires wrote: | So aside the link to "the tyranny of structurelessness" (which I | am about to read) the article is basically supporting it's own | premise: distributed systems _always_ go awry. I hate to be that | guy but there 's no proof of this at all. I can see it | theoretically, you can never predict all behavior in a system, | chaotic systems are unpredictable, etc. But there's no proof of | the claim, and the article basically argues that it is true | because it is true. | nfw2 wrote: | I generally agree with this essay, but I think the listed | problems with society misses the mark. | | "Everyone seems to increasingly be in it for themselves, not for | society." Is this really changing? I don't buy that people today | have less empathy for each other than they did historically. The | bulk of human history was cruel in ways that stagger the | imagination. | | "The gap between the haves and have-nots keeps widening." The gap | between rich and poor is not the correct target to optimize. The | only problem you can reasonably try to solve is improving the | quality of life for the have-nots. World-changing innovation | (steam engine, electricity, printing press) always makes a few | individuals exorbitantly wealthy, and the world is better off | because of it. | maerF0x0 wrote: | presuming from the domain the author is Canadian and so likely | this is more a proximal/recency comment on Canadian society, to | which I actually do agree it is really changing. | nfw2 wrote: | That's fair, but I think focusing on one region over a | limited time period can lead to incorrect conclusions. A | single country is not a closed system. | | The working class in the US has certainly suffered a | regression over the past several decades, while the upper | class gained tremendous amounts of wealth. One might assume | the wealthy seized their gains from the middle class, and | this may be true, to some extent. | | However, once you widen your lens to a global view, you will | see poverty world-wide drastically improved over the same | period of time. So the regression of wealth away from the | middle class in the US might more accurately be considered as | transfer of wealth to the rapidly-industrializing world. | | If you are referring to something different that's been | happening in Canada, I apologize. I am not very familiar with | Canadian history. | maerF0x0 wrote: | > the working class in the US has certainly suffered a | regression over the past several decades, | | Do you define regression as absolute position or relative | position? For example does it matter if Jeff Bezos has 100 | Ferraris if the middle class, on average, have .25 more | cars per capital than 50 yrs ago? | | I would love to put some data behind this discussion | because it's long been mixed up as to which case is the | ethical one (absolute vs relative growth). | nfw2 wrote: | What I mean is a regression of wealth and income relative | to the cost of living for most young people (ie pretty | much anyone who doesn't work in tech or other STEM | field). I don't mean relative to the most wealthy. | | Here is some data that compares the median income to the | rising cost of living in the US. | https://www.businessinsider.com/america-middle-class- | living-... | | I think the Bezos-Ferrari question is a good one. I feel | it is personally unethical for Bezos to spend that amount | of wealth on luxuries when the resources could | alternatively be spent reducing the suffering of others. | | However I also think it is impractical and misguided for | a state to enact policies with the primary purpose of | minimizing the number of Bezos Ferraris or to | automatically attribute the lack of cars per capital to | Bezos's excess of cars (although in some cases it might | be) | maerF0x0 wrote: | this is where somethings get really tricky to measure, | and i'm not trying to say i have the best answers.. But | this article talks about housing being up and that's | tricky because sq ft per person (and quality of each sq | ft) is way up, I'm sure there is a similar story about | health care costing more but also having better outcomes? | | I admit it's a difficult thing to measure and to discuss, | but I also do think that the tide is rising, but being | creatures who's feel good brain chemicals are related to | relative outcomes (see the primates w/ cucumber vs grapes | studies), we're also feeling a bad feeling because we see | others doing better to a greater extent than we are... | pphysch wrote: | > Big governments really do nonspecifically just suck a lot. | | > We don't need deregulation. We need better designed regulation. | | There is a major contradiction in this line of reasoning that the | author never addresses. | | The only way to have successful regulation is to have a powerful | regulator, a powerful governing organ. The government needs to be | the most powerful "firm" in the market. | | Otherwise, there will be a more powerful private firm or "trade | association" (read: cartel) that is the de facto "shadow | government" of one or more economic domains, that the de jure | government _cannot_ hold accountable. We see this _a lot_ in | America since the 70s, mainly expressed through regulatory | capture. | FpUser wrote: | >"Rich, powerful, greedy people and corporations just get richer, | more powerful, and more greedy. Everyone seems to increasingly be | in it for themselves, not for society." | | It's been that way forever with some rare exceptions. | | >"You can't hope to run an Internet service unless you pay out a | fraction to one of the Big Cloud Providers" | | Total baloney. Many do run Internet service without cloud | providers, including yours truly. It is true that for some reason | many do fall for that cloudy propaganda. Their loss. Not ours. | Keep digging your own graves. Or if they big enough they might | not care as they pass those costs down to end customer. | thesuitonym wrote: | >Centrally planning a whole society clearly does not work | (demonstrated, bloodily, several times). | | I really, really hate this argument. If it's true, why does the | CIA feel the need to destabilize countries with centrally planned | markets? Why has China been so successful despite what is widely | believed to be a failed premise? | | Central planning works as well as unplanned markets work: That | is, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, and it mostly | comes down to external factors. | zeroxfe wrote: | These arguments are not helpful because their metrics and | criteria for what constitutes "works vs. does not work" are | different from yours. | | > Why has China been so successful despite what is widely | believed to be a failed premise? | | They're successful as an economy, not as a society (obv, using | my metrics.) | endisneigh wrote: | By which criteria are they not successful as a society? | xbar wrote: | The ones that measure the success of a society. WEF's | Global Competitiveness Report and Amnesty International, | for example. | cblconfederate wrote: | > successful as an economy, not as a society | | You 're going to have to give a definition of that. | Subjective measures of success don't matter, that's why | people have different morals. Maybe the west has produced the | most "culturally dominant society" but it has also been | boosted by a few centuries of economic dominance, while china | has just come out of poverty. I'm not even going to ask why | china is considered unsuccessful as a society since afaik the | chinese neither commit suicide in droves nor are they running | to exit as fast as possible. | Aunche wrote: | I wouldn't say China is any more centrally planned than the US. | The economy is highly controlled in some aspects, but in others | it's a lot less regulated, which is how you get plastic in baby | formula. | | On a government level, every one is centrally planned. That's | kind of the purpose of it. Democracies just happen to elect | their centrally planned government. | pdabbadabba wrote: | I partially agree with the basic point here, but China's not a | great example as its economy is not, in fact, centrally | planned. It is more of a hybrid of private | enterprise/capitalism and strong state influence. Back when | Chinese central planning was more aggressive and comprehensive, | you had worse outcomes like the mass starvation of the Great | Leap Forward. | | The obvious issue is that centrally planning an economy to | achieve our desired outcomes is very difficult--perhaps beyond | our capabilities. Of course, an easy way of addressing this is | to do what China has done and effectively concede that you | can't centrally plan everything, but you can find an | equilibrium where the necessary parts are controlled and the | rest left to market forces, with a system of regulations to | address distortions created where the two meet. | | Of course, you might also say that it's not exactly trivial to | create a market-oriented system that achieves the outcomes we | want. I think history demonstrates that societies have had | greater success with market-oriented economies than with | centrally planned ones. But you may be right that we shouldn't | be so quick to completely rule out the possibility of a | centrally planned economy based on a small number of examples, | each of which was actively sabotaged by other major powers-- | much less should we rule out the viability of hybrid systems. | (In fact, basically all modern economies are some sort of | hybrid between planned and unplanned systems, including that of | the U.S.) | dsign wrote: | > Central planning works as well as unplanned markets work: | That is, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, and it | mostly comes down to external factors. | | I have first-hand, extended experience with a hard-core | centrally planned economy. It most definitely doesn't come down | to external factors. Everything I saw and experienced was self- | inflicted. And things keep getting worse. | whakim wrote: | The author is mostly talking about Soviet Communism, China | pre-1976, etc. in which the government owns _everything there | is to own_. The China of today isn 't "centrally planning a | whole society". It's a society in which the government owns a | much larger amount of assets, than, say, the United States (as | measured as a percentage of the country's national income). On | that metric, it's just further along the scale compared to | Northern European social democracies (where the government also | owns many more assets than in the United States). I think it's | a great mistake to assume that just because the government | owning everything doesn't work, the government owning | _anything_ is also bad. | awinter-py wrote: | author is describing a system of taxation based on compatibility | rather than on the need to pay for roads + armies | | this part feels real | | integrating with things is a tax in a lot of ways | cs702 wrote: | 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 and inter-connected_ , because all | other nodes want to connect via the most cost-efficient, most | inter-connected nodes. | | This dynamic is self-reinforcing. We are all familiar with it. | | Without some form of regulation (historically centralized, and | always imperfect), distributed systems like market-driven | economies, modern financial markets, and information networks | evolve to have _growing inequality of resources and connectivity_ | over time. | | I'm not aware of any exception. | deathcalibur wrote: | 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. | cyber_kinetist wrote: | To put it in more clear terms, the problem right now we have with | society is not centralization vs decentralization, global vs | local, or even authority vs freedom. Rather, the configuration | between the two opposites constitutes the totality of the whole | system, and not just one side is either the poison or the cure. | We need to change the whole system, both in terms of | centralization and decentralization. | | Our current neoliberal system allows for "freedom" as in freedom | of the consumer, but in the most authoritarian, dehumanizing ways | as possible. We have freedom as in which person to vote or what | things to buy, but that freedom is frankly put, meaningless. The | whole liberal framework of how we think about freedom has to be | questioned and challenged, or else we are going to have more of | those "freedoms" that rob ourselves more and more of actual human | agency. | germinalphrase wrote: | " The whole liberal framework of how we think about freedom has | to be questioned and challenged" | | What do you envision as the alternative? | int_19h wrote: | > the control system itself, inevitably, goes awry | | This seems to be the case with _any_ control system, whether | centralized or not. The difference is in the failure mode. | Decentralized systems start failing earlier, but do so in a more | gradual way. Centralized ones fail later, but much more abruptly | and all-at-once. So it 's really the question of which one you | prefer. | | Personally, I still believe that decentralized approach is | preferable in that regard. Centralization gives the illusion that | everything is a-okay (because things work!) even when the crash | is already inevitable and in motion; then when it actually | happens, it's a massive disruption all around. OTOH when bits and | pieces start falling off in a decentralized system, it's readily | obvious that a fix is needed, but there's still plenty of time to | design and implement it; and, furthermore, since most of the | system is still intact, it doesn't need to be recovered. | | The other advantage of decentralization is that it's more | politically viable to fix things in a more localized way. Fixes | to centralized systems necessarily have to be centralized | themselves, but that also means that you need a lot of buy-in | from everybody affected to enact them. In areas where consensus | is not established, this often means that problems in centralized | systems don't get fixed _at all_ , either because many people | don't believe the issue at hand to be problematic, or because | they can't agree on what the root cause it. In a decentralized | system, local consensus is all that is needed to fix (or at least | mitigate) an issue locally. | | Some argue that this latter part is actually a deficiency because | people end up fixing their own localized problems, instead of | coming up with a single centralized solution that fixes it once | and for all. But this assumes that such a single centralized | solution always (or at least usually) exists and its | implementation is viable - which is not at all obvious to me. | dash2 wrote: | I think most sensible people had figured this out already. The | people that don't and honestly believe everything will be fixed | by a DAO or whatever... they're beyond reason. | StevePerkins wrote: | Data Access Objects are going to save us all? | | EDIT: I am apparently too disconnected from the crypto crowd. | Or depending on how you look at it, appropriately disconnected. | api wrote: | They're trying really hard to solve a problem that hasn't been | solved yet, which requires placing oneself beyond the "reason" | of skeptics. | | https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm | | Their solutions may not and perhaps probably will not work | because it's a hard problem. | | The payoff for solving this problem is civilization without | single points of failure. No more wheel of rising and falling | empires that take all our progress and knowledge with them when | they die. No more pretending to bow down to megalomaniacs and | ideologues to achieve stability. No more vast centralized moral | hazards that attract sociopaths like moths to a lamp. | | I've taken to calling the zero-trust decentralization problem | "computer science's fusion." It's perpetually N years away, but | if we solve it the payoff is immense. | | Edit: Proof of work sort of kind of solves it, but not really, | and at tremendous cost. Nevertheless the fact that it gets | _close_ is maybe suggestive that the real solution is somewhere | nearby. | dash2 wrote: | I'm really sorry, bud, but I count you as one of my "beyond | reason" group. Sure, your technical solution will bring in | utopia! | api wrote: | There will never be a utopia because when you eliminate one | set of problems you reveal new ones. The fact that we are | even discussing this is because we are not dying of | cholera, starving, or being eaten by lions. The goal is to | advance one step at a time. | | Eliminating civilizational SPOFs would be a fairly large | step. | [deleted] | micromacrofoot wrote: | none of this is a computer problem, they're all people | problems | dmitriid wrote: | > Proof of work sort of kind of solves it, but not really, | and at tremendous cost. Nevertheless the fact that it gets | close is maybe suggestive | | It doesn't solve it, and it will never be close. If you ant | just one reason, it's easy: _enforcement_. You smart | contracts mean zilch if you can 't enter a house some scammer | just sold you. | dash2 wrote: | Yup. Cheap slogan: noone has yet decentralized the gun. | yourabstraction wrote: | I think part of the problem is that DAO (decentralized | autonomous organization) is simply a poor way to describe what | these new orgs are. Yes they're decentralized, but they are not | fully autonomous, as they still require people writing code, | making proposals, voting, etc. I think a much better term is | "decentralized open organization" DOO. This captures better the | fact that this revolution is about a new type of human | coordination, not automation, even if a lot is automated. I | think it helps to frame this as a social revolution to | understand the full power of it. | | Advances in the ability to coordinate humans often leads to | great advances in society and technology. Now where crypto is | immensely useful, is that in the past a decentralized group of | people would have still had to be tied to a specific nation for | banking. Now with crypto, a group of people from all over the | world can run a company that's fully internet native that | relies on no single nation for it's banking needs. You may not | see it, but to me that is a ridiculously powerful concept. | sorethescore wrote: | I think that eventually, anything that can be run by a DAO will | be run by a DAO, just like with automation, any process that | can be automated will, eventually, be automated. | aarondf wrote: | I think I've given the concept of DAOs a good faith effort, | but I cannot understand how anyone thinks they are going to | work for anything substantial. | | Even if "governance" is "decentralized," there are still | going to need to be people in the DAO, day to day, doing the | work that no one wants to do, making decisions that no one | wants to make. | | It seems to me like a DAO is just a college group project but | if you add crypto it solves everything? | | Organizational behavior and its challenges don't go away | because you've issued tokens. | | Honest question, what the heck am I missing? It has to be | something! | politician wrote: | I think this is right. The inevitable climate change-induced | population crash will necessitate more automation, further | accelerating an accelerating trend. | | *DAO doesn't need to run on Ethereum blockchain, it can also | be a sufficiently autonomous collection of ERP systems. | WJW wrote: | So far this does not seem to be true though. There are a | great many processes which we could have automated but have | so far not done yet, often in domains where safety is very | critical and/or are very human-involved. One particular | example is the automation of train and aircraft piloting, | where humans are required by law and due to public demand but | not actually necessary for the job. | | In particular I'm thinking about some of the procedures | aboard nuclear submarines where automated systems were tried | and eventually rolled back, because the automation would be | fine 99.9% of the time but when it failed it would cause | disaster at computer speeds instead of just at human speeds. | I can definitely imagine a bug in a DAO being completely | unacceptable in some domains even if it is more efficient | than doing the same job with humans. (For example, in | national voting) | | Finally even for those cases where automation is desired and | could be done by some autonomous entity, I'm not sure why you | would specifically need a Distributed AO instead of just | regular cronjobs on a server somewhere. Any real-world system | is going to need regular updates anyway, so you end up | centralizing trust in whoever can update the code for the | (D)AO. | timerol wrote: | It's worthwhile to note that there are currently driverless | metro lines in the world. We do seem to be moving in that | direction for automation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis | t_of_automated_train_system... As always, the future is | already here - it's just not evenly distributed. | BobbyJo wrote: | The thing people generally don't want automated is exactly | the the thing money is intended to do: allocate resources. | | Very few people want a robot deciding how they spend their | time, energy, and assets. Resource allocation will be the | last unautomated job on the planet if we make it to post- | scarcity. People want everything done for them _except_ | deciding what those things that need to be done are. | ro_bit wrote: | > The most reasonable daycare and public transit in the Bay Area | is available only with your Big Tech Employee ID card. | | What's this about? | codezero wrote: | Monthly Caltrain passes cost (last I used them) cost ~ | $200/month. Tech companies usually give such passes away, or | heavily subsidize them. | blobbers wrote: | I think this is a dig at the google bus. The daycare thing is | way less true. The price of google daycare (bright horizons?) | is nuts. I think it was like $2800/month per kid for googlers. | throwaway984393 wrote: | We have, in Western society, managed to simultaneously botch the | dreams of democracy, capitalism, social coherence, and | techno-utopianism, all at once. It's embarrassing actually. | I am embarrassed. You should be embarrassed. | | I think the author is looking at the past through the lens of the | present. A lot of that paragraph is mixing so many ideas that a | historian would be shaking their head. What we have is _miles_ | better than anything that came before. We botched "the dream" ? | Whose dream? | | Firstly, we don't live in a "true Democracy". The Athenians tried | that, and some aspects of it were pretty nice, and some sucked | (which was something of a trend... all political systems have | pros and cons) and it lasted a couple hundred years. And when | this new nation (USA) was founded, literally all the founders | couldn't agree on how to set it up, because every way they could | imagine sucked. So they all compromised a whole lot, and what we | got is a Representative Democracy, in the form of a Republic | (specifically a federal presidential republic). And today it's | working exactly the way the founders intended 245 years ago. | That's a huge deal! Not 100 years before our nation was born, the | British overthrew the monarchy and tried to form a Republic, but | that only lasted 20 years until it fell back to Monarchy and then | evolved into Empire. We're doing pretty damn well today, I think. | | Second, Capitalism comes in many forms. Which one is _your_ | dream? Because I 'll guarantee you that the founders, and | everyone since, have all had conflicting views about what _kind_ | of Capitalism we 're supposed to practice, what its aims should | be, and how to achieve them. But we still accomplish the broadest | sense of Capitalism, and we do it so well that we're the richest | nation in the world by far. If you can somehow convince everyone | to agree on _one form_ of Capitalism, with one specific set of | goals, then maybe we can achieve that. | | Third, Social Coherence can only work in a bubble, and we do | certainly have many of those, so I'm not sure how that dream | failed. You're never going to get 320 Million people to be | socially coherent _in all ways, all the time_. Especially not | when their political, cultural, and ideological history has | evolved such that one half of them think the other half are | maliciously immoral and virtually evil. | | Finally, hooooo boy. Utopianism. What can you say about the dream | of a literal perfect society? If that's what you're basing all of | these complaints on, then I guess the rest make sense... If you | believe in a perfect society, then of course you'd believe you | can get politics and economics and social order perfect, too. But | the most ridiculous part of this dream is that _technology_ is | supposed to reach a Utopia. Really? _Technology?_ That stuff that | 's expensive and complicated and pollutes the earth and depends | upon the "evils" of Capitalism and Globalism and _Programming_? | That stuff that depends upon outsourced employment, unequal pay, | and unfair labor to produce, and creates huge piles of toxic | waste? That stuff that enables new technological business models | that find new innovative ways to prey upon people to create money | for a tiny few? _That_ is what 's gonna bring about your Utopia? | | I am not embarrassed. We've accomplished a lot, and we'll keep | accomplishing a lot. It won't be fast or easy, and we will never | have a perfect society. But things do get better. If you want to | feel less embarrassed, stop ranting into your blog and start | creating change. _Then_ you can rant into your blog about how | difficult change is. | darawk wrote: | I think this take on decentralization and structurelessness sort | of misses the point. Of course it's true that all systems that do | anything useful have structure somewhere. The point of various | movements for "decentralization" are where to locate that | structure. Jo Freeman's essay correctly points out that | "structurelessness" in activist movements locates that structure | in social influencers and insiders, which is probably not | desirable for most action-oriented purposes. | | Which layers or pieces of the system we choose to anonymize and | make fungible are an important architectural choice, and | DeFi/crypto simply expand the scope of available choices in that | regard. Prior to their existence, it was not possible to locate | structurelessness in the layer that crypto does. Whether locating | it there proves to be useful remains to be seen, but it is | clearly an expansion of our capabilities, in the same way that | Paxos and Raft are for databases. Yes, they still have structure, | no, that does not make them useless. | willhinsa wrote: | > IT security has become literally impossible: if you install all | the patches, you get SolarWinds-style supply chain malware | delivered to you automatically. If you don't install the patches, | well, that's worse. Either way, enjoy your ransomware. | | Sad but true. | xondono wrote: | > Rich, powerful, greedy people and corporations just get richer, | more powerful, and more greedy. | | Everyone is getting richer, as for greedier.. | | > Everyone seems to increasingly be in it for themselves, not for | society. | | The socially responsible company movement is now _a thing_. Most | companies now care about the environment and their employees to a | point that was unheard of decades ago, even if only because of | PR. | | > Or, people who are in it for society tend to lose or to get | screwed until they give up. | | And yet there's a market for doing good things. The number of | NGOs is in all time highs. | | > Artists really don't get enough of a reward for all the benefit | they provide. | | What? Artists _have never had it easier_. From spotify to | patreon, or even youtube. Distributing and monetizing has never | been easier. | | > Big banks and big governments really do nonspecifically just | suck a lot. | | _Suckness_ is non-surprisingly tied to government. The closest a | market is to government the more it sucks. | | > The gap between the haves and have-nots keeps widening. | | The statistics say otherwise | | > You can't hope to run an Internet service unless you pay out a | fraction to one of the Big Cloud Providers, just like you | couldn't run software without paying IBM and then Microsoft, back | in those days. | | On premise is still a thing. | | > delivering less per dollar, gigahertz, gigabyte, or watt. | | Except compute has never been more efficient. | | > We even pay 30% margins to App Stores mainly so they can not | let us download apps that are "too dangerous." | | We pay them for curating and maintaining a system that's working | for millions of people. | | > IT security has become literally impossible: if you install all | the patches, you get SolarWinds-style supply chain malware | delivered to you automatically. If you don't install the patches, | well, that's worse. Either way, enjoy your ransomware. | | When wasn't it that way? Were you around the days of the "ping of | death"? | | > Everything about modern business is designed to funnel money, | faster and faster, to a few people who have demonstrated they can | be productive. This totally works, up to a point. | | Citation needed | | > But we've now reached the extreme corner cases of capitalism. | Winning money is surely a motivator, but that motivation goes | down the more you have. Eventually it simply stops mattering at | all. | | Call me crazy, but once I've covered my expenses and built a | safety net, I'd rather slow down, enjoy my life, spend time with | my family... That you see a negative there somehow is baffling to | me. | Vaslo wrote: | I think this is a group of views by a San Francisco California | liberal. The art comment kills me as well. If anything, the | overexposure of people on YouTube, Twitch, etc shows just the | sheer volume of people who all want to be artists and exactly | why not everyone should be paid for their art. | rewgs wrote: | As always, essays like these bring to mind the Prisoner's | Dilemma. A thought experiment that, at scale, humanity | consistently loses. | | I'm not sure that there is a solution. Part of the overall system | of..."all this," for lack of a better term...is the fact that we | are always dissatisfied by the results of consistently losing the | Prisoner's Dilemma and thus are always looking to solve it; our | always-looking-to-solve-it more or less guarantees the fact that | we will continue to lose it. Around and around it goes. | | I ruminate on this stuff probably more than I should, and the | only semblance of a conclusion that I can come to is that we only | choose the objectively right choice within the Prisoner's Dilemma | when we are given a reason to overcome our selfishness, i.e. | during times when not working together presents a clear and | present existential danger. Thus, war, breakdown of complex | systems, death, etc, are all inherent parts of choosing that | which keeps us going for just a little bit longer. Just as | someone suffering from addiction might only finally turn the | nosedive up once they've hit rock bottom, the New Deal was only | possible in the midst of a world war and the Great Depression. | Intelligent folks can see these problems coming from a mile away, | as this essay makes clear, but actually mustering humanity | together to walk in step to a degree in which we can actually | address these problems either requires authoritarianism or a | massive _imminent_ danger to rally against. | | Some are born during the spring, when we're coming out of one of | those bad periods and have mustered the will to replace a part of | society's roots with something better so that it might continue a | little longer; almost immediately, those who benefit from it take | advantage of it and begin dismantling it, thinking they can have | their cake and eat it too -- retain the work society has done | together, that rare thing, and use it to help boost themselves to | a height far greater than might be achieved by simply | contributing to the continued existence of society as a whole. | Everyone being in its for themselves results in a breakdown, | leading inexorably to some sort of collapse, big or small. Those | born in winter do the hard work of setting things the pins back | up so that their children can knock them down again. Around and | around it goes. | | The wild thing is that, as the interlocking mechanisms of society | get more complex and consist more and more of complex | interlocking systems themselves, and as globalization continues, | those cataclysms shrink in scale and increase in number. 90 years | ago it was a world war; today it's millions of little fires that | need putting out, technical debt piling up, the odd sense of | alienation brought upon by society looking at itself. The rock | bottoms multiply, from one a generation, to one a minute | somewhere in the world. Just juggling that and seeing how _that_ | all interacts becomes its own crisis of entropy. | | I suppose I'm rambling now -- this kind of ruminating has a way | of transforming from terse description into navel-gazing poetry. | Around and around it goes. | vslira wrote: | Here's an exercise to think about if we're living in the best or | the worst of times: pick a year to be born in. But you can't | choose where, not the conditions: assume a typical human life at | that point in time, considering the whole world. This might | require some research, of course, and a lot of unknowns (How was | South America in the 450's?), but working with what we can know, | try to choose this date. | matthewaveryusa wrote: | I'll go even nerdier. Having implemented raft and paxos many | times over (don't ask why, and also don't ask what implementing | paxos means, no one really knows) The most efficient distributed | systems rely on _not_ having Byzantine faults[1] -- effectively | there's a certain amount of trust you need to delegate to the | network. The network itself is the substrate in which these | algorithms can work efficiently. Short of that you'll need to | move to a system that is tolerant to Byzentine faults. The cost | of moving there is very expensive transactionally-speaking. | | For markets the analogy is the same: a regulatory environment | provides the substrate in which an efficient distributed system | can rely on to prevent Byzentine faults. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault -- for all | intents and purposes byzentine == malicious. | | edit: I should have read the article to the end, literally the | next paragraph where I stopped to comment said what I just said, | but better. | renewiltord wrote: | Bro, literally none of this stuff is inherent in the system. You | can still make a Beowulf cluster. You can still network a bunch | of Raspberry Pis. Computing has never been more accessible. | | Writing software has never been more accessible. | | But consumer standards have risen. The geeks are out there and | will happily work from your source code if that's all you want to | share. | | The old life is still available. It's just that back then that | was all that was available. | | It turns out there are a whole bunch of superstar product | designers out there. And now that the software nuts and bolts are | easy, those guys are beating (in the market) all the guys whose | skill was nuts and bolts. | | That's natural. It what comes from accessibility. That is good | because the whole world is lifted by the fact that some fool can | build a business on Zapier and Airtable. | lordnacho wrote: | You know what makes a distributed system work? Failure. | | Now and again, nature arranges for a catastrophe. An asteroid, | too much oxygen, lignin building up, nature has cleaned up after | and built on top of the rubble. | | Over the last 20-odd years, we didn't let a real economic | catastrophe happen. There are millions of people working the | wrong job. Loads of people have a made a ton of money providing | nothing useful at all. Without a periodic shakeup, the bullshit | merchants take over the economy. People who talk a good game but | are never held to account. Who is swimming naked? There is too | much money to know. | | Part of the reason is centralization. Unfortunately, we don't | really have 200-odd governments. A lot of them think the same way | about the issues that matter, and a very small group influence | all the others. | ausbah wrote: | what about the costs to global economic catastrophes outside of | money? the livelihoods of millions are ruined, families slip | into needless poverty, and people die. if those are the costs, | I don't think just letting things "work themselves out" is | worth it | lordnacho wrote: | Catastrophes are smaller if you let them happen now and | again. And localized. And you will have planned for them, | because the population isn't conditioned to think the | government will bail them out. | zaphar wrote: | It takes roughly about one generation for a population to | get conditioned to think the government will bail them out. | One great depression and the majority of that generation | will make it their goal to get a government in place that | will "bail" them out. It's humans being humans. There is no | technology or legal or society you can build that won't | degenerate in that way or get wholesale replaced because | they are all built and used by humans. | mcguire wrote: | " _The summary is that in any system, if you don 't have an | explicit hierarchy, then you have an implicit one._" | | That is very well put. I'm stealing it. | snewman wrote: | > We don't need deregulation. We need better designed regulation. | | This is the key point. So many debates about "more X" vs. "less | X" when what we mostly need is "better X". Anti-Covid measures; | almost any sort of "security"; government programs of all sorts. | And, yes, very much regulation. | | Scott Alexander has had some nice riffs on this theme, though I | can't come up with a specific link at the moment. | hindsightbias wrote: | "We don't need deregulation. We need better designed regulation." | | Ah, I guess the anarcho/libertarian crowd is stepping back from | the abyss. But how is that going to make your EC2 SSD go faster? | Cheapen your egress fees? Make you write software that actually | has less exploits? Pay artists better? | | As with many ideas here, how about a concrete suggestion? Here's | mine: software security education for all developers. 1 year of | it. Mandatory. Financial penalties for developers and their | employers. | | You don't get to call yourself a professional and punt on | responsibilities. We don't let doctors or lawyers do it, why | should we let coders? | pietrovismara wrote: | > software security education for all developers. 1 year of it. | Mandatory. Financial penalties for developers and their | employers. | | Either you offer it completely free to anyone in the entire | world, or this is just another barrier to prevent access to the | developer "elite". | | And btw, often it's not the developer that cuts on security | features, but an executive that wants to get to market faster. | How about we give compulsory security training to every | manager/executive/ceo/etc AND we hold them legally responsible | when damages are caused by their eagerness to cut on costs? | lisper wrote: | This essay seems deep and profoundly insightful but I don't think | it actually is. Its ultimate call for "better designed | regulation" is the no-true-scotsman fallacy in sheep's clothing. | How do you know if your regulations are "properly designed?" If | they produce good outcomes. But the problem is that there is no | consensus about what a good outcome is. Some people are not | happy, for example, unless women are quite literally forced to | bear children under threat of fine or imprisonment [1]. Of | course, these people would not put it that way. They would say | that they are not happy unless the systematic slaughter of | innocent babies is stopped. _That_ is the problem. | | And this problem runs very, very deep. A significant contingent | -- significant enough to swing elections -- of one of the two | major political parties in the most powerful nation on earth | would prefer to literally deny the laws of physics than admit | that anything said by a "liberal" might actually be true. They | would prefer to _literally_ have children shot in school on a | regular basis than "give up their guns". Of course, they | wouldn't put it that way, but that is the trade-off in point of | actual fact. | | In an atmosphere like that it is not possible to produce | "properly designed regulation." In today's political environment, | the instant you even utter that phrase, you lose. | | --- | | [1] And BTW, the person making that argument before the Supreme | Court yesterday was a woman, and one of the justices who is going | to vote to eviscerate Roe is a woman, so this is not just the | patriarchy at work. | Veelox wrote: | You seem absolutely certain you are right about certain issues. | One of the big draws of America originally was that is was huge | and open and you could join a community that agreed with what | you mostly. | | Yes some people view abortion as a right, others view it as | murder. The process shouldn't be to gain enough power to force | everyone to follow what you want. It should be to establish | rules we can all live by and then live and let live. | Mississippi wants strong restrictions after 15 weeks. Let them. | New York wants on demand until birth. Let them. | | Honestly, if I know your opinion on abortion I shouldn't be | able to guess your opinion on taxes. It would be good to allow | more diversity in options and long term we can see which ones | work. | ModernMech wrote: | IMO the actual big draw of America was that it was a nation | of laws and ideals, rather than a nation of men. Those ideals | are that there exists a fundamental right to life, liberty | and the pursuit of happiness for every person. The problem | with the idea that we can all join a community that agreed | mostly with ourselves, is that some people mostly agree that | some humans can be considered property based on the color of | their skin. Or that women should be subservient to men. Or | that the final solution to their problems is that one | religion or ethnicity should be excluded from their society. | These people exist today, they were not defeated in the Civil | War or WWII. See: Charlottesville. | | The process isn't about forcing everyone to follow what you | want. It's to force everyone to permit everyone else the | fundamental rights protected by the Constituiton. We know for | a fact that when you let people organize into autonomous | groups based on their own preferences, some will tend to | organize into a group that is at stark odds with the idea and | ideals of America. We've seen it before with disastrous | consequences. | thurn wrote: | I assume you'd also have felt this way about e.g. | segregation? An equally controversial issue in its time? | Veelox wrote: | "All men are created equal" is a pretty compelling reason | to end segregation. "the right of the people to keep and | bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is a pretty compelling | reason to end gun control. "nor shall any State deprive any | person of life, liberty, or property, without due process | of law" is a pretty compelling reason to require a trial to | have an abortion. | | You can make really good arguments from our established | principles for and against most controversial issues. There | is a clear method to add rights to the Constitution. I | would say that happened for segregation and it took awhile | to be enacted. If someone wants to change something for | abortion or gun control let's amend the founding document | otherwise let people live within the rules we have set. | engineer_22 wrote: | At first I was agreeing with you - it's hard to find consensus | when asking "what is good?" It's a problem as old as politics. | You hit the nail on the head! | | Then you started on a partisan diatribe about how the other | side of politics is wrong (and stupid). | | What I think you've failed to realize, is that the other view | is _necessary_. A single party state is totalitarian by | definition if not by fact. There _must_ be other views, and | there must be a struggle for dominance among ideas. The | struggle for dominance is natural, and healthy, and we should | embrace it, even though it might sometimes be painful, it 's | the only way to grow personally and as a society. | walterbell wrote: | _> the other view is necessary._ | | So necessary that fake opposition becomes necessary to | legitimize totalitarian policy, if organic opposition has | been silenced or removed. | [deleted] | GavinMcG wrote: | It might not be deep and profoundly insightful, but if it sets | things up in such a way that it _can_ credibly utter the phrase | "properly designed regulation" then it's moving in the right | direction. | | In other words, properly designed regulation might not be a | deep and profoundly insightful solution, but it might seem that | way at first glance because our political discourse is so | screwed up these days. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | That's a _really_ hard problem though. There are too many | powerful interests, on too many sides, all trying to | influence the regulations to give them a leg up. | | The best regulations come as a _balance_ of the competing | interests. But that requires the different interests | recognize each other as legitimate, or at least as needing to | be met halfway as a practical matter. It can 't be done in a | scorched-earth atmosphere - all that can come out of that is | regulation that is _differently_ bad. | what_is_orcas wrote: | > And BTW, the person making that argument before the Supreme | Court yesterday was a woman, and one of the justices who is | going to vote to eviscerate Roe is a woman, so this is not just | the patriarchy at work. | | That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the supporting | statements, though I agree with your overall sentiment. | thurn wrote: | (also the person, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott | Stewart, does not to my knowledge identify as a woman) | lisper wrote: | My mistake apparently. I remember reading yesterday amongst | all the coverage that the person arguing for Mississippi | was a woman, but now I can't find that story. (Maybe it was | retracted because it wasn't true.) I'd edit my comment but | the deadline has passed. | what_is_orcas wrote: | I totally missed that! You're right, I was just more | focused on the logic. | notron wrote: | He wouldn't be a woman even if he tried to identify as one. | Everyone else would still identity him as the man that he | actually is. | M2Ys4U wrote: | You could say that the distributed system of politics has bad | regulation. | | The regulations constrain the system in such a way to produce | two huge opposing parties, and encourage corruption of their | members. | | Regulations like the voting system(s) in use, the regulations | on who can donate how much to whom, or how corruption and other | rule breaking by politicians is investigated and punished (or | not punished, as the case may be). | | And I'm not just talking about the US here - although US | politics is a giant dumpster fire in this regard. | dsign wrote: | This is not a problem with a simple solution or only a few | dimensions. | | "better designed regulation" is all that is needed in some | cases, when it is possible at all. I also know of plenty of | places where the only option people have, if at all, is to vote | with their feet. | | Some people can throw money and time at changing the system | from within, and that's okay. But for those many cases where it | is futile, if I had a bag of money of a pertinent size and | wanted to throw it at philanthropy, I would think of ways for | people who want to vote with their feet to be able to do so | systematically. | throw10920 wrote: | Almost all of the stuff said in this comment ranges from | misrepresentation ("A significant contingent -- significant | enough to swing elections -- of one of the two major political | parties in the most powerful nation on earth would prefer to | literally deny the laws of physics than admit that anything | said by a "liberal" might actually be true.", "Some people are | not happy, for example, unless women are quite literally forced | to bear children under threat of fine or imprisonment") to | outright falsehoods (the challenge to Roe in the context of the | above statement). | | And it's not even on-topic. This is an off-topic tangent | (there's no particular connection between the specific issues | mentioned and the article - they were picked because they're | partisan issues that the author wants to bring up, not because | of any relevance) that looks like an attempt to start a | political flamewar, and I don't believe that it belongs on HN. | lisper wrote: | > And it's not even on-topic. | | It's an illustration of how we as a society cannot agree on | what a good outcome looks like. If we can't agree on that, | then there is no hope of agreeing on what "better designed | regulation" looks like. | Joeri wrote: | The call for better regulation is not inherently in conflict | with this being a people / culture problem. There is no set of | rules that cannot be subverted from within if those enforcing | the rules wish to subvert them. Presently the U.S. is | experiencing a culture war where a significant group of people | are "the ends justify the means" types. No system can withstand | that sort of attack indefinitely. On top of that, I notice a | fatalism in U.S. politics which results in reasonable people | bowing out of trying to make things better. You single out the | conservatives, but I see plenty of reason as an outsider to | also point fingers at the liberals. | | Speaking specifically to pro choice vs pro life both of the | viewpoints have merit, but because people in the culture war | are so entrenched in their "side" this can no longer be | admitted. Back in reality though everyone agrees there is a | time past which the child has a right to exist that trumps the | mother's right to choose, even if for some that is at 8 months | of pregnancy and for others it is at conception, and everyone | agrees that it is wrong to force a woman to carry a child she | does not want. So, in a sense, everyone is both pro choice and | pro life. All we're talking about is at what point in the | pregnancy one gets priority over the other. This can be | negotiated like anything else, and the usual principles of | negotiation apply. But, because of the culture war, people have | stopped negotiating and are trying to get the rules (supreme | court) to protect their point of view, which as a rule cannot | provide a lasting solution. People have got to learn again how | to talk with each other. | heurisko wrote: | > Computers are so hard to run now, that we are supposed to give | up and pay a subscription to someone .... | | Computers were hard to run when installing an OS meant you burnt | CDs. | | And medium tier "webhosting" meant an expensive control panel | with no root access. | | I'm amazed how easy things are today, you can setup and tear down | operating systems in a minutes, and there's lots of medium tier | server competition and a few big players for bigger projects. | id02009 wrote: | There's more made up stuff on there. Like a claim that | unregulated markets are quickly filled with monopolies etc. Yet | the only monopolies I see today are set up and protected by the | government. And those have abysmal level of service and are | really hard to use. | thanatos519 wrote: | The fact that our awkwardly exploitative synthetic systems depend | on elegantly balanced natural systems which are now inexorably | collapsing renders this otherwise-interesting discussion entirely | moot. | | Get your UUCP maps up to date -- you'll be communicating through | USB sticks transported by pirates before you know it. | slibhb wrote: | We currently emphasize freedom or people making choices. The fact | that greed and indifference often carry the day is an indictment | of people and their choices, not "the system". | | It has often been remarked that socialism and Christianity are | similar. They both preach the gospel of love. The difference is | that the Christians, whatever their faults, understand that good | and evil is a question of something inside every person. | Socialists, on the other hand, tend to have this legalistic idea | that we can regulate away sin. It doesn't work. Regulatory | bodies, like all institutions, are composed of people and so they | cannot transcend the frailities of those people. | | The defi people have this idea that we can regulate with clever | algorithms. I don't think they will be any more successful than | the socialists. If they succeed, they'll create a system without | humans at its center which we will find even more intolerable | than capitalism or socialism. If you want a preview of this | system, consider the phenomenon of people begging on twitter for | Google to unban their account. | | When we complain about greed, we're talking about one of the | oldest questions: how to make people good. We should pay much | more attention to what religions have to say on that question | than the world socialists or technocrats imagine they can create | with the right regulations. | hairofadog wrote: | _> The difference is that the Christians, whatever their | faults, understand that good and evil is a question of | something inside every person. Socialists, on the other hand, | tend to have this legalistic idea that we can regulate away | sin._ | | I can only guess that your experiences with both Christianity | and socialism are starkly different than what I have | experienced. | syngrog66 wrote: | I agree wholeheartedly with this piece. Have for years. | | I've invested a lot of time into thinking and learning about | these sorts of "big" or societal/infrastructural/cultural | problems, and figuring out what are the very top problems | (AFAICT), and prioritized them down to say the 2 to 5 biggest and | most growing threats that need to be eliminated, mitigated or | fixed. I've begun working in my free time on what I see is the | 2nd most urgent and apocalyptic threat: | | democracy vulnerabilities -- the risk of free peaceful | democracies (like the US, most especially, and despite our | obvious impurity in that regard) devolving and collapsing, and | trying to mitigate the attacks and corrosive effects from the bad | actors pushing for it (which in the case of the US includes some | treasonous and misguided domestic folks but also certain foreign | governments as well.) | | I'd love to make a difference too on what I see as the #1 | threat/risk (greenhouse gas emissions, climate shifts, ecosystem | collapse, pollution of our land/water/bodies) but... its harder | for me to see ways where my skill mix and resources can help | there. compared to the #2 one (democracy collapse.) | | they are inter-linked, because #1 can increase forces pushing #2 | to happen. and if #2 happens its more likely to make #1 worse | than better. | | but yeah I'm done with the purely worrying, thinking & talking | stage. I'm _acting_. With as much urgency as I can afford to | invest, time-wise. | jb1991 wrote: | > The most reasonable daycare and public transit in the Bay Area | is available only with your Big Tech Employee ID card. | | Is there really "public" transportation only available to FAANG | employees ?! | jolux wrote: | How do we judge that governments are not providing services at | good value? How many other institutions in the US are tasked with | ensuring the safety and well-being of 300 million people and do | it for less? | | It's a bit of a cliche to say that government is too complex, but | I think it's worth considering that the problems that government | is trying to solve are unique and incredibly difficult. I | appreciate the call in this article to get to the real work of | helping to solve these problems. | ericls wrote: | I don't think it's a good idea to make more and more solutions to | problems that we don't understand. | | What about we spend more time to study the problems, to study us. | Hakashiro wrote: | Some arguments there are ok but: | | > The most reasonable daycare and public transit in the Bay Area | is available only with your Big Tech Employee ID card. | | Just move to Europe lmao | JanisL wrote: | 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 completely unprofitable if it | could get access to freshly printed money every quarter to prop | it up. What then happens to all the other businesses who don't | get access to that freshly created money? When we have situations | like the BoJ owning more than 60% of the Nikkei 225 we really | ought to be asking some serious questions about if we really have | free markets? We also should be asking some questions about the | properties we desire in money _itself_. If a central monetary | agency can go about unconventional monetary policy such as | purchasing equities we can quickly have a situation whereby an | unelected group of bureaucrats can damages the ability of money | to be used as a means to convey information. Further there 's | questions about picking winners and losers that comes up there | too. As a whole I think people need to ask what money is again | and have some serious conversations about what money and the | monetary system should be. It seems that these difficult | questions really fell out of favor a while ago and as a result | things have been drifting in a direction that many people aren't | comfortable with. | | If we don't ask these questions then technological approaches to | money, like various cryptocurrencies and other financial | technologies are unlikely to actually cause long lasting | improvements. We have some serious monetary policy problems in | the world right now and while some tech could help (in some | cases) these aren't primarily technological problems. | whakim wrote: | > 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. | | Historically, Western democratic states owned a significant | amount of assets as measured as a percent of national income - | it was only in the period 1970-2008 that the value of total | state-owned assets shrunk to near-zero (or even became negative | in some cases). So the large increases in value of states' | balance sheets (and corresponding impacts) is not at all | unusual. That being said, you're correct to point out that | _Central Banks_ heading these trends is a little concerning, | mostly because it basically represents democracy outsourcing | these important decisions to unelected bureaucrats. | zapataband1 wrote: | Exactly. I watched read about 2009 watched the Big Short and | watched all these USELESS tech companies thrive on empty | promises and venture caps where rich people are basically | playing the lottery. | | The financial system captured our society a while ago. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Debt is >50% of advanced economies, and it's price fixed. | | Why bother with setting the price of bananas and everything | else, when you can set one price and have a greater effect? | JanisL wrote: | It would seem that the temptation to set the price of | everything is increased when there are impediments to setting | the interest rate (since this removes an important monetary | policy lever). I think this has been seen lately as the zero- | lower-bound on nominal interest rates has started to come | into play in many places. | mempko wrote: | > As a whole I think people need to ask what money is again and | have some serious conversations about what money and the | monetary system should be. | | Yes! This is an incredibly important conversation and this | conversation is already happening. You see MMT becoming | mainstream. Because MMT is a description of how money works | today. That it's a technology (and always has been) for | governments to provision themselves. | | In fact, I doubt you would have had the stimulus package we had | with COVID without that conversation. And it helped millions of | people. It also had the unfortunate side affect of growing | inequality. We also have the euro, which is, in my opinion a | bad implementation of money (central bank without democratic | oversight). And of course bitcoin based on the idea of hard | currency economics. | | One discussion I don't see at the moment is a vision for | society without money. That's a discussion the communists had | over 150 years ago. It's a serious question because money IS a | technology. Is the telephone the best communication technology? | No, we moved on from the telephone. We should be asking the | same thing about money. Because money is a technology designed | around organizing economic activity. But is it the best | technology? | | Example, the value that money represents is a single value. But | why is it a scalar and not a vector? For example, why isn't | everything priced with a value and a carbon cost? That would | make prices vectors instead of scalars. In fact people value | things across many dimensions and have to come up with a price, | a single value. Imagine playing a video game where, instead of | 3d vectors, everything is represented as the length of the | vector. That's a lot of information that is just thrown away. | | In fact, markets have a known flaw called externalities. This | flaw is created partly from the fact that value is a scalar. | This flaw is so severe that major pollution has been created by | economic activity (global warming, ozone, etc) that risks all | life on this planet. | | People need to have imagination if we are going to survive as a | species. | shoo wrote: | > the value that money represents is a single value. But why | is it a scalar and not a vector? For example, why isn't | everything priced with a value and a carbon cost? That would | make prices vectors instead of scalars | | Suppose for the sake of the argument that the main countries | making up the world economy agree to re-price everything in | terms of length 2 vectors (standard_cost, carbon_cost). The | former element is measured in units of USD say, and the | latter is measured in units of kg CO_2(e), say. | | Suppose I go to shopping to buy a new CPU. Vendor A offers | CPU_A for ($200, 15 kg CO_2(e)) while vendor B offers an | equivalent product CPU_B for ($198, 50 kg CO_2(e)). | | In the current economy, where externalities of global warming | caused by market participants are not priced or regulated, I | will purchase CPU_B, as it costs me $198, and I save $2 . I | choose the product with the additional CO_2(e) footprint of | (50 - 15) = 35 kg CO_2(e). The negative impact of that | additional 35 kg CO_2(e) pollution is amortized over 8 | billion humans [1], so everyone in the world pays the price | of an additional 35 kg CO_2(e) / 8 billion = 4.375e-7 grams | CO_2(e) per person. Myself as the end-user and the | counterparties in the transaction (merchant, distributor, | manufacturer, suppliers, etc) get to share in the value | generated from the transaction, but most of the 8 billion | people in the world do not get a cut of the value or utility, | they only pay the cost. | | As well as making the prices vectors, it would be necessary | to add some other kind of limited resource into the vector- | money economy, to constrain individuals from making decisions | with large carbon pollution externalities, otherwise we're | back to the same situation where we started, but with a lot | more bookkeeping that nearly everyone will ignore. | | One way to do this could be introduce regulation for a | greenhouse gas pollution rationing system: for argument's | sake, suppose we allocate each of the 8 billion people in the | world an equal quota of kg CO_2(e) / year pollution they are | permitted to emit [2]. Suppose there's roughly 40 gigatons of | CO_2(e) pollution per year, and roughly 8 billion people in | the world. That gives a quota of 5000 tons of CO_2(e) | pollution allowance per year per person. Assuming humanity | manages to hold the rate of carbon emissions steady and hold | population steady, that gives a quota of 5000 kg CO_2(e) per | person per year. Each time you purchase a good or a service, | the carbon cost is deducted from your personal carbon budget. | For efficiency, suppose we also allow carbon quotas to be | traded between market participants. Now we have a carbon | market where people exchange $ for CO_2(e) carbon emission | allowance. | | Now, arguably, we can go back to having scalar prices: | Instead of the price of CPU_A being the vector ($200, 15 kg | CO_2(e)), it can be the scalar $200 + carbon_price * 15 | kg_CO_2(e) . Similarly for CPU_B . | | If we assume a carbon price of around $200 / ton of CO_2(e) , | as has been proposed in Canada for ~ 2030, that gives prices | of $200 + 15 kg * $ 0.2 / kg = $203 for CPU_A , and a $198 + | 50 kg * $0.2 / kg = $208 for CPU_B . So as a selfish | individual trying to make choices that are good for me, now I | am incentivised to pick CPU_B , which is also (relatively) a | better choice for the rest of society. | | [1] conservative working assumption that the current | generation of 8 billion humans is the last generation, and no | new humans are born. if we assume future generations, then | there's even more humans to amortize the cost of pollution | over. | | [2] in the real world, not everyone is going to get an equal | carbon quota. we don't have a world-scale regulator able to | regulate a world scale problem. as has been demonstrated | throughout human history, individuals and groups with more | power will use that power to wrangle a better deal for | themselves at the expense of others. we're not all in it | together, even if it is a problem with a global pollution | sink becoming full. e.g. i am an australian, in our country | we have a per-capita carbon footprint of around 21,000 kg / | CO_2(e) per person per capita. That's over four times higher | than the pollution per-capita if everyone in the world | polluted an equal amount. No domestic politician is going to | get elected running on a platform of "unilaterally reduce | everyone's carbon footprint by 75%" - the stakeholders who | would benefit most from that are the 99.6% of humanity who | live in other countries, and they aren't allowed to vote in | Australian domestic elections. Dear reader, if you have read | to the end of this rant, please lobby your government to put | tariffs on your trading partners until they introduce carbon | taxes -- particular us in australia. | walterbell wrote: | Would this vector stop at length two? How about other | "nudge" worthy metrics? See existing cross-border tariffs | for a long list of physical properties which influence | tariffs for a perceived and often disputed, social | objective. | sam0x17 wrote: | 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 "clearly they don't work anyway". | | All systems trend towards chaos eventually. The answer is | always more or better regulation. Sometimes better means more, | sometimes better means "take these 50 regulations, get rid of | them, and replace them with one simple one that gives you | better outcomes". We don't want a rulebook so large no one | could ever read all of it (we already have that). We don't want | the complexity of the regulations to spiral out of control | along with the system -- regulations need to be adapted over | time to handle the current (and near future) complexity of the | system. And we don't want no regulations -- then the system | itself will spiral out of control. | | The whole idea of legal precedents works against this too -- | the logic is inverted --- instead of constantly coming up with | new takes and new rules to govern old and current situations, | we hark back to a decision someone made 50 years ago and we say | "this is set in stone", when we should be constantly updating | and modifying those precedents to better fit the current state | of the system. Eventually new laws get passed, but the judicial | system itself is largely a damper on progress in this regard, | dragging us into the past and making changes that could take 5 | years take 50 years. We see this reflected in our astounding | incarceration rate, and a number of other areas. | | The pace of technological and societal evolution has grown to | be much faster than the pace at which we upgrade our | regulations. We are speeding towards a brick wall. | nine_k wrote: | > _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. | webmaven wrote: | _> 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 concentrations of capital and power. | [deleted] | JanisL wrote: | I'm trying to encourage a discussion about what money itself | should be. I think without this discussion it will be very | hard to make effective regulations around money and the | implications this has on the operations of the banking | system. Once people are more informed about these topics | better regulation will be possible. Frankly I don't see | people talk about the fundamentals of money much, the current | monetary system is convenient enough for most people such | that they don't have to think about the details of how it | works in their day to day lives. | sam0x17 wrote: | What money is in what sense though? In a | centralized/decentralized sense? In a philosophical sense? | Are we considering going back to bartering? | | My point is, you see companies abusing bailouts and say "oh | no, our fundamental concept of money is changing because | bailouts". I see that same situation and say "oh no, our | regulations are so antiquated that they are 50 years behind | in terms of the abuses they are able to prevent, we need to | update our regulations and create new ones, and create a | framework for rapidly adjusting regulations going forward, | because the current rate is untenable." | | This problem extends well beyond money and touches every | area of society. Society and technology are evolving faster | than the legal frameworks that supposedly govern them. | Limiting the scope of the discussion to just cover money | would do just that, limit the scope of what should be a | much wider discussion. | voakbasda wrote: | Anti-regulation != anti-government. I am okay with regulation | and being regulated, but I absolutely am not okay with any of | our existing governments having any part of that process. | Revolution does not require anarchy as an outcome; indeed, my | preference simply would be to install better governance. | | Turning the law into a set of constantly shift sands would | make it impossible to do business, because that could end up | rivaling anarchy. Risks can be taken only when the | consequences can be predicted in advance. Without precedents, | every single legal case would turn into a gamble. Only fools | and the insane would ever stick their necks out; not far from | where we are now, I suppose. | tjr225 wrote: | > Risks can be taken only when the consequences can be | predicted in advance. | | That sounds like the opposite of a risk to me. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Risks can only be intelligently taken when the odds of | the different outcomes are at least approximately known | in advance. | BitwiseFool wrote: | I've been reading about the philosophy of Law, and how | other cultures deal with legal codes. One of the most | intriguing takeaways was critically examining our own | system and just how verbose it is. American (and just about | all Western Legal Codes) are extremely detailed and contain | tons of clauses that are explicitly enumerated. | | Whereas an older society might have a law as simple as "Do | not break into other people's houses", we will have dozens | of codes defining what constitutes breaking and entering, | determining what kind of property was being broken into, | the scale of theft, whether or not there was intent, and | more. And, there are sentencing differences depending on | what kind of tools the burglar was carrying, if at all. To | me, now that I've seen how other cultures handle law, this | is complexity overkill. | | We don't seem to be comfortable with "common sense" laws | because they are considered too vague. But the alternative | is a really dense legal code you have to be professionally | trained to understand, and one that is so complicated that | offenders can avoid prosecution based on dozens of | technicalities. | sam0x17 wrote: | Right, but society has accelerated. 50 and 100 year | precedents used to make sense. Now it seems like they need | to be updated at least every 10 years, because that's how | long it takes for society to fundamentally change at the | current rate of progress. | | Regarding government, if you don't like your current | government, then if you think hard about it, what you | really want is either 1) additional regulations or | restructurings that prevent the government from having the | bad traits it currently has, or 2) the removal of existing | regulations that are preventing the government from being | better in your eyes. | | If your statement is "I don't like the current state of the | government" then you are simply for transforming it into | something you do like. This can be done through a | regulatory framework. | | If you don't trust the government as it is, then you are | one more voter for regulating X, Y and Z such that you do | trust the government. | visarga wrote: | Voting is a blunt tool. It destroys too much nuance and | freedom of choice. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MABMM301USM189S | | Yes, corrupted a tad. :) | GavinMcG wrote: | I think the article would argue you're making the mistake it | criticizes: you're ignoring the role of regulation. | | > If a central monetary agency can go about unconventional | monetary policy such as purchasing equities... | | If that's a problem, prohibit it. | JanisL wrote: | I'm not sure why you'd take from this that I'm ignoring the | role of regulation when I'm commenting on a situation whereby | the regulatory framework of central banks allows them to take | actions that damage the signaling power of pricing. I most | definitely think that banks and central banks _must_ be | carefully regulated because they have the special privilege | of creating money and with this comes a lot of | responsibility. | | The other part though is that if money is corrupted it | impacts the process of regulation itself. For example | creating good regulation to tax companies is made far more | difficult when there's fundamental differences between the | nature of the money that those companies themselves have | access to. I'm sure it would be possible with a large amount | of effort to have regulations with non-fungible money but | there's challenges there that would be substantially | difficult to address and the complexity of that regulation | would come with it's own non-zero costs to society. | sam0x17 wrote: | In simpler terms, for any complaint you come up with, | here's a regulation to fix it. Problem solved. | | If the problem is a regulation, let's remove or modify that | regulation. Problem solved. | | If your problem is there are too many regulations, let's | get rid of 20 of them and simplify down to just this one. | Problem solved. | | Oh, that simplification created its own problems? Let's | create new regulations covering those three scenarios. | Problem solved. | | But if we are much slower at creating regulations than we | are at creating new situations that require regulation, it | creates the perception that regulations don't work, which | leads to rapid de-regulation of everything. Our current | legal and political framework simply wasn't designed for | this. It was designed for 13 small colonies writing paper | letters back and forth, where waiting 3 months for a court | to make a decision or 1+ years for congress to pass a bill | was considered quite timely and fine. We now live in a | society where there is probably a need for 2-3 new | regulations per day, and 1-2 adjustments to existing | regulations, per day, and an AI chat bot that will tell you | whether something is legal based on current regulations. | la6471 wrote: | The real problem is not the technology but the mindset. Simply | follow the twin principle of live and let live AND do no harm to | others. Have a moral compass. You don't need to be religious or | even spiritual for this. Just understand that this is best for | you in the long run. | throwaway803453 wrote: | * Everyone seems to increasingly be in it for themselves | | I was fortunate to have had a career with mild autonomy to help | other team members even if it was slightly out of my job | description. But this only happens in a shared office environment | where you can see when someone is falling behind or overhear a | problem. That physical presence also creates a bond with co- | workers that's often more powerful than the corporate mission. | | But working from home for the past years I feel like I mercenary | working among mercenaries. Working with people that have never | met and will never meet and for whom work isn't about the mission | or the customer. If I get work done early, I now just call it a | day. Why bother with ad-hoc testing, documentation, checking in | on that new hire, proposing a conference paper, investigating | technical debt, etc. It's liberating but it's also depressing. | servercobra wrote: | This sounds like a corporate/team culture issue with remote | work, rather than remote work as a whole. I can still tell when | my coworkers are falling behind and check if they need help, as | well as building bonds. The bonds certainly aren't as strong as | when we used to all go out for lunch or drinks every so often, | but they're still there. | Buttons840 wrote: | > If I get work done early, I now just call it a day. Why | bother with ad-hoc testing, documentation, checking in on that | new hire, proposing a conference paper, investigating technical | debt, etc. | | Office workers can have this attitude as well. If you'd think | poorly of others having this attitude in the office perhaps you | should look at your own attitude with remote work. | | I have formed bonds through remote work, and yes, they are | different, but a lot of the difference you describe is because | of _you_. That 's ok, people are different, just don't assume | everyone else is the same. | Thorentis wrote: | The missing key here in my opinion is subsidiarity. | Decentralisation works up to a point, but many decentralised | solutions assume that everybody is the entire system must reach a | concensus e.g. Blockchain. And that concensus usually involves | some kind of "majority rules". Which means that in practice, 49% | of people might be left unhappy. That is not the sign of a | healthy society. | | What we need instead is the follow the principles of subsidiarity | [1]. | | Local level markets, DeFi solutions, governance structures, | communication platforms, etc that are capable of enforcing their | own rules, but that are interoperable to some degree with other | systems. | | The Matrix project I think is a great example of this. | Unfortunately, it looks like they _might_ be making some bad | decisions around global moderation, but in general the idea that | local servers can exist with their own rules, but still send and | receive content from other servers is great. | | We don't want to end up in a future where Big Tech can | automatically censor any video you upload, any message you send, | or any call you make. This doesn't mean we need the Wild West, it | means that you should be participating in a community where you | all agree on the rules. And if you want to participate in | somebody else's community, you need to follow their rules. This | idea that some global all powerful entity can just banhammer | somebody for something they said in a community that everybody in | the community thought was fine, is totally unacceptable. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity | s7r wrote: | Love this comment! You can see some of my explorations on | subsidiarity: | | https://juststart.do/just-start and | https://sambutler.us/localfutures | | What's a way to contact you @Thorentis? Likewise, you'll have | my contacts from these urls -- would love to connect and | introduce! | pezzana wrote: | > Everyone seems to have an increasingly horrifically misguided | idea of how distributed systems work. | | > 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. The fundamental mechanism of the | capitalist model. | | This article would benefit from being more specific. Take on that | un-named "decentralized" system directly rather than side-swiping | it as is done here. It's a cop-out. | | It looks like the author is thinking while writing, which is | fine. But that alone is not going to change people's minds. I'd | look forward to an article where the author, after having gotten | thoughts in order, comes back to write an article talking about | something specific. | drclau wrote: | > This article would benefit from being more specific. Take on | that un-named "decentralized" system directly rather than side- | swiping it as is done here. It's a cop-out. | | The author is probably just trying to avoid attacks from the | cryptocurrency proponents. | Juliate wrote: | He critiques decentralized systems taken as an independant | solution in general, based on their working principle, not a | specific decentralized system. | ploika wrote: | > We have, in Western society, managed to simultaneously botch | the dreams of democracy, capitalism, social coherence, and | techno-utopianism, all at once. It's embarrassing actually. I am | embarrassed. You should be embarrassed. | | I generally agree with much of this blog post but the phrase | "Western society" annoys me no end and is a bad fit here. | gtsop wrote: | Excuse me for the dismissive tone, but this looks a dog chasing | his tail. Does anyone REALLY believe that "things don't work"(tm) | because the systems put in place are flawed? No sir, the systems | in place work flawlessly for those who put them there, enjoy the | benefits of those systems and make damn sure these systems keep | benefiting them no matter what. As long as one doesn't | acknowledge this very simple fact, they have no hope of | drastically changing society, not even conceptualize a solution | IMHO | CapmCrackaWaka wrote: | > No sir, the systems in place work flawlessly for those who | put them there | | Well, if you define "work" as benefiting as many people as | possible, then no they don't work. That's obviously the point | the author was making. | goodpoint wrote: | Phrasing it as "things don't work" misleads people into | thinking that it's just a matter of reforming a couple of | regulations. | | Instead this a world-wide, centuries-old conflict for power | and wealth. The kind of thing that people live and die for. | badrequest wrote: | Defining it this way indicates a misunderstanding of the | purpose of these systems. | HappyKasper wrote: | I think the acknowledgement is implicit in this piece - current | structures have allowed this "power capture" and need to be | improved. The point the author makes is that blockchain has | very obvious avenues for the same power capture and that for | this reason, it's not a better option than the difficult work | of improving existing and well-explored systems of | power/political order. | munificent wrote: | _> Does anyone REALLY believe that "things don't work"(tm) | because the systems put in place are flawed?_ | | I do. When society produces large-scale negative outcomes, I | believe there are roughly four causes: | | 1. Because human groups are complex, interactive, iterative | dynamical systems, the system as a whole may have emergent | properties radically different from the intentions of any of | its individual participants. No one in a crowd crush is | deliberately commiting evil, yet the result is dead bodies. | Designing large scale human systems with the desired emergent | properties is extremely hard, like controlling the weather | while also being a raindrop. | | 2. Since culture lives inside human brains and gets enshrined | in physical artifacts, large scale systems change extremely | slowly. Even when we (for some definition of "we") know better, | there is a large lag before we can see the change. | | 3. Even well-intentioned people are fallible and make mistakes. | Some level of power variation is useful, so you will inevitably | sometimes have people in power who screw things up and whose | position magnifies the negative consequences. This is | particularly true when the consequences are long-term and hard | to predict like leaded gasoline or CFCs. | | 4. Some people are selfish and willing to harm others for their | benefit. A few are outright sociopaths. Some fraction of these | will end up in positions of power. | | Conventional wisdom is that these are in increasing order of | importance and that most of the bad we see comes from | megalomaniacal billionaires. I don't like those dudes either, | but my belief is that this is actually in _descending_ order. I | think most of our problems are because the systems we 're part | of are just huge and unpredictable with emergent effects no one | anticipated or wants. You can't really blame the problem all on | evil billionaires because the production of billionaires is | itself a property of the system. | rustmachine wrote: | I agree with this, well put. Are people evil, or are our | structures and systems so complex that we are unable to find | best solutions? | | Honestly, I think evil is a byproduct of the complexity of | our society. There are no quick fixes. Everything is complex | and very difficult. Trying to do large-scale good might very | easily turn out to have very bad consequences. Its much | easier to just be a gear in the machine, but the its the | logic of the machine that ends up dictating the outcome - and | when the machine is societies with 300 million people, its | very hard to predict what that logic will be. Most likely it | wont be good. | lowbloodsugar wrote: | >Some people are selfish and willing to harm others for their | benefit. A few are outright sociopaths. Some fraction of | these will end up in positions of power. | | Some sociopaths become business leaders and politicians. | That's not the interesting question. The interesting question | is the opposite: what fraction of business leaders and | politicians are sociopaths? I'll wager it's nearly 100%. | munificent wrote: | I would happily take that bet. I'm sure it's higher than | the percentage of general population, but I'd bet money | it's still less than 20%. | rustmachine wrote: | I dont know. I think you underestimate how difficult it is to | make big organisations work well. As soon as any organisation | grows large enough (say, a large municipality), it becomes an | incredibly difficult task to run it perfectly. Everyone trying | their best, but still people from office A have no idea what | people in office B does, bosses make the wrong decisions | because they dont have access to correct knowlegde and are | overworked, employees stop taking responsibility because their | bosses are overworked and the decicions making structures are | opaque and feel futile. | | None of this is evil or bad faith. Its simply very hard | problems that are hard to solve individually. We try to | organize or build systems to fix these things, but its a very | hard problem. | | I'm not denying that there are powerful people doing evil | things to benefit themselves, and that this is huge part of why | everything is bad. Im just saying we shouldnt lose sight of the | fact that a lot of our troubles come down to our problems being | extremely complex and human nature doesnt interact that great | with that kind of complexity. Our biggest problem i think is | not nefariouss badguys, but the immense scale of our issues and | our inability to tackle them at the proper level. | mempko wrote: | Bingo. Those in power by definition can change the system, but | they don't. Which probably means it's working pretty well for | that cohort. | | But one thing you are missing is that those in power are just | like us. Deeply flawed people and what they build is flawed for | their purposes too. | | Global warming is a great example. They have absolutely no | solution to it and it will decimate not just them, but | everyone. | Invictus0 wrote: | If the people in power are always 60+ years old with access | to lots of money and airplanes, then no, global warming will | not decimate them. They can just hopscotch around to wherever | the climate is fine. Global warming really only affects | people who lack mobility. | mempko wrote: | Money and airplanes only really work when there is a highly | organized stable society. I think it's a mistake to assume | that will be always the case at the extremes. | practice9 wrote: | I agree with your point. Systems like governments get "too fat" | and there are many issues with holding them accountable or at | least creating more transparency around their actions. | | Calling for more regulation by an entity that needs to be | regulated itself is a modern paradox. | _greim_ wrote: | I immediately thought of Scott Alexander's "Meditations on | Moloch". | | https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ | | His conclusion is that the only thing that could ultimately | defeat the god Moloch (basically a personification of the | problems described in the OP) is if we install a different god | Elua (basically the personification of a human-friendly machine | intelligence) to do the job. And if that sounds like hubris, the | notion that we could overcome these problems ourselves is an even | bigger form of hubris. | DonnyV wrote: | Only on hacker news would someone post about a very good take on | the problems of our society and then everyone's comment is | arguing over semantics. Happens every time on here. | streamofdigits wrote: | Its the worst of times, its the best of times. The digital | revolution (or whatever this is) has degenerated into a bizarre | mix of speculative frenzy, unprecedented concentration of control | on a background of complete disregard for societal impact. | Phoneyness and false representations abound - there are no | repercussions. The "market" applauds. | | Its time to go back to the roots of computing. Reinvent what the | digital age means. Imbue it with soul and values in an | inalienable way. 100% human-centric. Augmenting human ability, | augmenting human society. There is enormous value in that. Not | manufactured Ponzi value. Real value. Improving our lot. Solving | the real problems of sustainability, persistent inequality, | debilitating ignorance and suffering. | | If you have talent now is the time to change the world. You know | its not utopic because you have seen the extreme leverage of the | digital toolkit. | birdyrooster wrote: | Hey while you are all fixated on values, I'll be over here on | Mars enjoying my full self-driving car, playing multiplayer | games with Earthlings via StarLink on my Tesla phone, and | recreating with my Tesla conjugal visitation bot. You'll be | impressed by how much Marscoin I've accumulated to buy things | at the commissary of this work camp where we are terraforming | the red planet for future inmates, erm I mean residents. | dougmwne wrote: | Maybe there is already a better alternative that is enjoying | meteoric success along many dimensions. Maybe that alternative | already dominates the supply of physical goods and supply chains. | Or maybe not. | GavinMcG wrote: | What are you actually saying? You seem to be gesturing at | something, but it's not clear what that thing is. | exodister wrote: | I believe they are gesturing at socialism or some kind of | centrally controlled market which has helped companies like | Amazon and Walmart excel. | dougmwne wrote: | China. Though I am no fan of the system, the trend line is | clear. This author lumped their system in with central | control and dismissed them in the service of making their | point. I suggest they are not some outlier to be excluded | from the dataset. | [deleted] | Zaskoda wrote: | This piece seems to use "decentralized" and "distributed" | interchangeably. These are not entirely the same concept. | dtaht wrote: | sometimes... I hate how popular avery's posts are. (he's my | former boss). I simply can't write like that. Or think like that. | good show, ex-boss! | indymike wrote: | The first step in solving a problem is realizing there actually | is a problem. If you think about it, humanity really is getting | better and better over time. That thought really doesn't help | much when you are fighting with a big bank about $261 in random | fees, though. | Clubber wrote: | >If you think about it, humanity really is getting better and | better over time. | | That is such a vague statement it is essentially meaningless. | Better how? How is it not better? What do you mean by humanity? | How is your life better? How is it worse? | chubot wrote: | Good list: | | https://www.gwern.net/Improvements | | I feel food is immeasurably better than in the 1990's when I | grew up. I'd partially attribute that to faster and better | communication -- i.e. if you take the Internet away from a | chef or farmer, I think their universe of ideas and | ingredients would be dramatically smaller. | | Speakers you can get for just $500 have made a big jump since | even 2015 (though this is a tiny niche; in general audio | quality is worse than in the 1970's.) | | Combat sports are also having a renaissance and many people | attribute that to YouTube! | | That said, I totally agree with this article, and with the | premise. There is rising economic inequality, and regulation | has a place in imposing values on the market. Markets where | nobody trusts each other aren't efficient or useful. | | I think the area where that really hits home and is made | tangible is architecture. If you just let the market run wild | with architecture, you're going to get really ugly boxy | buildings that make everyone miserable. We live in a shared | space, so you need cooperation to make good architecture. | Unfortunately it does seem like that's been on the decline. | Architecture is worse than it was in the past. | | Related: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/20 | 21/10/wh... | | I'd also agree that computing is worse than it was 20 years | ago in many important ways. I wouldn't say it's worse | overall, e.g. being able to handle video is a big | improvement. Wireless is pretty good although there are many | flaky incarnations of it. But I'd say both user interfaces | and latency are worse, products are more user hostile, and | the web is filled with ads and low quality information. | Hardware is now proprietary software, so a Linux system is | less open than it used to be. | nomdep wrote: | On average, middle class and below lives longer and more | confortable than in the previous thousands of years. | Clubber wrote: | When you go back thousands of years, it's pretty easy | assertion to make. How about the last 40? Are we really | better off in totality or just different? I can think of | some things that are better, but I can think of a bunch of | things that are much worse. | kijin wrote: | Why focus on the last 40 years as opposed to the last 4, | 400 or 40000 years? Anyone can pick two convenient points | on the timeline and argue that things got worse over that | period, but larger trends are harder to overlook. Stock | prices have fallen a bit this week compared to last week, | and some stocks are doing worse than others. It doesn't | mean the market generally hasn't been rallying for the | last decade or so. | danans wrote: | > How about the last 40? Are we really better off in | totality or just different? | | IMO in the last 40 years it has become harder (more | expensive) for those who have had it a bit better off to | separate themselves both physically and culturally from | those who are a lot worse off (regardless of why they are | worse off). | | All the while the cost and accessibility of erstwhile | public goods that temper that desire for that separation, | like safety and education, have skyrocketed. | | That separation and the inequality behind it has | doubtlessly been enabled by a heap of injustices. The | effects of this are seen in situations spanning from | police brutality to current refugee migration crises. | | We haven't been able to as effectively outsource pain and | chaos to others (whether in our own backyard or the other | side of the planet) while shielding ourselves from the | blowback like we once did. | | Therefore people feel worse off, not because they are | necessarily worse off, but because they fear that the | nearing chaos will make them permanently worse off. | | The richest <1% don't have to directly deal this problem, | since they can easily still pay for that separation. | lm28469 wrote: | Length of life and comfort don't mean much once you reached | the bare minimum. If you have running water, central | heating, a mattress and own any kind of motorised vehicle | you live a more comfortable life than any medieval king. | | So yeah, sure, we have netflix, smart bulbs and food | delivery. Can you sustain a family as easily as your | grandparents ? Will you retire as early as them ? Will you | acquire an house as easily and as early ? How meaningful is | your job ? | | The endgame of "length and comfort" is to live in some kind | of coma pod like in The Matrix, you'd probably live to 150 | years in absolute comfort | | https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Le | t... | Clubber wrote: | There's an old bluegrass song called "I'll Fly Away," the | music is very happy and upbeat. When you listen to the | lyrics, you realize it's a slave song about how the | narrator is looking forward to death so they can escape | the horrible life they are living. The point of that is | just because we live longer doesn't mean we live better. | NateEag wrote: | A few point out that | | 1) A ton of bluegrass sets grim, sad lyrics to bouncy | major music - it's pretty much how the genre works | | 2) I'll Fly Away is a Christian song, so it's not exactly | "looking forward to death" so much as "looking forward to | heaven and communion with God". Granted, those two things | are closely linked in the religion. | all2 wrote: | For more on the song: | http://www.trialanderrorcollective.com/collective-collab- | blo... | germinalphrase wrote: | Relevant African American Folktale: "The People Could | Fly" | | https://www.wheelcouncil.org/stories/the-people-could- | fly/ | lm28469 wrote: | When people say that on HN I read it as: "as a young, healthy | and well paid tech worker living in _tech hub of a western | country_ life is really good and getting better". We have it | really easy indeed, but you can't project that on "humanity" | colinmhayes wrote: | Global poverty has never been lower, things are not just | improving for white collar workers. | krmboya wrote: | What counts as global poverty in the course of human | history? | cowl wrote: | By every measurable metric, Humanity has gotten better. | Longer lifespan, lower child mortality, better education, | easier access to basic life neccessities and goods, (ironic | to say at this time but yes even) better health, etc etc etc. | We live in an age where every problem is weaponised and we | are hyperaware of the problems now so that we don't see all | the progrees that is done. | https://www.openculture.com/2020/05/16-ways-the-world-is- | get... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w | Clubber wrote: | >By every measurable metric | | Every measurable metric? How about median wealth? How about | levels of debt? How about job satisfaction? How about | median income per household? Per person? How about access | to healthcare and cost? How about suicide rates? How about | drug overdose rates? How about corruption? How about cost | of higher education? How about homelessness? I mean cmon, | you're looking at thing with rose colored glasses. | pietrovismara wrote: | Life today is so much better than at any other time in | history, because washing machines! And because I'm middle | upper class, almost forgot that. | betwixthewires wrote: | By every single one of those metrics the world in | aggregate is better than 100 years ago. Go back 250 years | ago and it's not even arguable. | | You're being short sighted. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Median wealth? Better today. | | Levels of debt? Probably worse today. | | Job satisfaction? Probably worse. | | Median income per household? Better. | | Per person? Better. | | Access to healthcare? Better for the median person, not | sure about the poorest. | | Healthcare cost? Probably worse. | | Suicide rates? Probably worse. | | Drug overdose rates? Probably worse. | | Corruption? Probably better, though more publicized | (maybe better _because_ more publicized). | | Cost of higher education? Worse if you go to an expensive | school. But there's never been a time when it's easier to | educate yourself, for free, if you don't care about the | piece of paper. | | Homelessness? Not sure; it's more publicized now, but | it's been bad off and on for decades. It's probably | better now than in the 1930s, but that may not be a fair | comparison. | all2 wrote: | As long as we're "howaboutin" let's talk about genetic | diversity. DNA is self-replicating, self-repairing, etc. | But what it doesn't do is create _new_ information. With | human procreation methodologies we lose bits of data, and | just living life our data undergoes entropy. The outcome | is less genetic information available every generation. | | And one more "how about testosterone levels in men?" | These have been falling for the last 60 or 70 years. Men | in the West will be impotent by 2040ish at current rates | of decline. | [deleted] | xibalba wrote: | I suspect I do not agree with many of the political opinions of | this writer. Yet, I find myself strongly agreeing with the | general conclusions. Of course, specificity and implementation is | probably where the civil war breaks out. | Gravityloss wrote: | I was recently on sick leave and had some time to concentrate. I | read William Gibson's Neuromancer finally. Glad that we aren't in | that dystopic future. | edmcnulty101 wrote: | It seems to me that it's a little bit of hubris to have human's | running the Federal Reserve and setting monetary policy. | | It seems like the economy is this massive system with virtually | infinite moving parts that no one truly understands and the | people at the fed just continue to poke it with a stick. | colinmhayes wrote: | That's why we have automatic stabilizers like ngdp targeting, | which the Fed has recently embraced. | pdonis wrote: | The article lost me here: | | "The job of market regulation - fundamentally a restriction on | your freedom - is to prevent all that bad stuff." | | Here's the problem: a "market" that is regulated this way _is no | longer a market_. In order to _have_ a market that works at all | as a market, it _has_ to be free in the sense that all | transactions are voluntary. If you restrict people 's freedom to | engage in the transactions of their choice, you break the market; | it no longer does what it's supposed to do. | preseinger wrote: | All useful markets are regulated. | pdonis wrote: | All useful markets are regulated _by the free choices of the | market participants of which transactions they will and will | not engage in_ , yes. The idea that a free market, with the | definition of "free" that I gave (all transactions are | voluntary) is "unregulated" is simply wrong. In a free | market, you can't force other people to do things they don't | want to do; you have to get them to voluntarily trade with | you. That regulates the behavior of all market participants. | And it does it better than any regulation by third parties, | who have no skin in the game and suffer no penalty if their | regulations cause harm, can possibly do. | pessimizer wrote: | So you don't even believe that externalities are possible? | pdonis wrote: | _> So you don 't even believe that externalities are | possible?_ | | I said no such thing. I have no idea where you are | getting that from. | preseinger wrote: | No, by central authorities. | | Unregulated markets lead to exploitative and destructive | outcomes 100% of the time. This isn't even a controversial | statement, it's just a pithy summary of all relevant | history. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Here's someone trying to rig the stock market. Regulation means | that they aren't free to do that. Regulation means that I am | free to get a fair market for my stock. I'm more free, and | they're less free. (I mean, I also am not free to rig the | market, but I wasn't going to do that anyway. | | You're free from the threat of murder, which means that I am | not free to murder you. Giving freedom always means taking away | some other freedom. | | The point of regulation is to say that some freedoms are more | important than others. The freedom from murder is more | important than the freedom to murder. The freedom to get a fair | price is more important than the freedom to rig the market. And | so on. | | Markets work well when the regulations are right. They work | badly when the regulations are wrong, or when the regulations | are missing. | colinmhayes wrote: | Market failures are too common for unregulated markets to be | free. | pdonis wrote: | Regulation by a centralized entity, to restrict people's | freedom to engage in voluntary transactions, doesn't fix | market failures. It makes them worse. | colinmhayes wrote: | How do you think externalities should be solved? | pdonis wrote: | _> How do you think externalities should be solved?_ | | The only way to solve them is the way suggested by | Coase's Theorem: reduce transaction costs to the point | where voluntary trades will internalize the | externalities. Of course this solution is not always | possible, but that just means that in cases where it's | not, _no_ solution is possible. There is nothing that | requires the universe to always make solutions possible | for whatever issues we humans perceive. Certainly it does | not follow from the fact that voluntary trades cannot | always solve externalities, that government interference | in markets _does_ solve them. It doesn 't; as I said, it | makes them worse. | pdonis wrote: | _> How do you think externalities should be solved?_ | | Since government interference with markets involves | people making rules who are not parties to any of the | transactions in the market and who suffer no penalties | when their interference causes harm, government | interference itself is an externality. So the claim that | government interference can somehow solve externalities | is obviously false on its face. | GavinMcG wrote: | That's just not borne out in looking at the many markets | already functioning under various regulatory schemes for | decades now. Lots and lots of markets work as markets, and have | fundamentally voluntary transactions, even though certain kinds | of transactions are restricted. We've been living in that world | for a long time now, and while there's room for debate about | what's _most_ functional, there 's no credible way to claim | that there aren't any functioning markets these days. | pdonis wrote: | _> That 's just not borne out in looking at the many markets | already functioning under various regulatory schemes for | decades now._ | | If markets under all the regulatory schemes we have were | actually "functioning", we would not have all the economic | issues we have. For example, we would not have the supply | chain issues that are currently making the news. We would not | have had the crash of 2008, or the Great Depression for that | matter. I could go on and on. | | _> there 's no credible way to claim that there aren't any | functioning markets these days._ | | I made no such claim. You're attacking a straw man. | GavinMcG wrote: | No, I'm attacking the logical implication of your | statement. It's a reductio ad absurdum. | | You said for a market to work "at all" as a market, it must | have voluntary transactions, and people must be able to | engage in the transactions of their choice. But nearly all | markets do not have those features. Ergo, nearly all | markets are not able to work at all, under your premise. | | Accepting that most markets _do_ work to a substantial | degree, your premise must be wrong. | pdonis wrote: | _> nearly all markets do not have those features._ | | This is not true. Many markets do have those features. | They just don't make the news because there are never any | newsworthy issues with them. | jiveturkey wrote: | > Let's build what we already know is right. | | There's no universally or commonly accepted view of what is | "right". | ignoramous wrote: | That's a great way to stall any progress towards anything | worthwhile. Everything in moderation. There's always a way. | More often, it is right down the center. | marksbrown wrote: | Relevant : https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on- | moloch/ | g_sch wrote: | The way the article cites "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" is | slightly off base. The essay argues that lack of structure is not | an effective way to dismantle hierarchies, because it merely | masks them instead of dismantling them. It does not go as far to | claim that hierarchies and power structures are inevitable | (although many people citing it claim that it's making this | argument). | | Although I guess you could argue that the text itself is less | important than the impression it made on people who read it... | andrekandre wrote: | > We have, in Western society, managed to simultaneously botch | the dreams of democracy, capitalism, social coherence, and | techno-utopianism, all at once. It's embarrassing actually. I am | embarrassed. You should be embarrassed. | | maybe i'm crazy, but it just seems weird to lump these all | together like they are expected to work well together | | democracy: one person, one vote (egalitarianism) | | capitalism: money is power, and capital is used to accumulate | more of it (competitively and socially) | | if you base your society on those two contradictory ideas, it | seems inevitable a competitive system that encourages | commodification and selling anything and everything to make | increasing profits will cause all sorts of havoc on society and | warp institutions to support those who "have" vs "have not" | > We don't need deregulation. We need better designed regulation. | | this sounds good at first, but we used to have "good regulation" | and obviously we are where we are because those "good" | regulations were torn down.... running the clock back on | regulation will just put us back in the same place again because | those with power and influence (monetary and social capital) will | warp them for their own ends | mindslight wrote: | This post had so much potential, only to start going off the | rails calling a straw man of libertarianism a market failure mode | [0] and crash and burn by ignoring that so many of the listed | gripes are due to centralized authorities being themselves | corrupted. The regulators he's championing are also responding to | their own incentives - they create ever more | procedures/bureaucracy on small-scale actors to appear to be | doing something, while failing to police large scale misbehavior | because of too big to fail. Joe Businessman wants to sell | psychoactive substances? Put him on a list to prevent access to | the banking system! Golden Mansacks created financial logic bombs | that blew up? Print trillions to bail out the industry! | | The example of an invisible hierarchy being not paying your "AWS | bill" is straight up weird. If the entirety of a system is on | AWS, then it's not really decentralized now is it? In fact the | whole post is weirdly biased towards the paradigm of centralized | systems while claiming to talk about decentralization. Only | boring-ass "web scale" businesses need to " _pay out a fraction | to one of the Big Cloud Providers_ ". Grassroots self-hosted P2P | communication - aka the original and everpresent Internet punk | dream - does not. | | There's definitely wisdom in here and we're never going to change | things without questioning assumptions to see where they lead, in | many different paradigms. But I feel this train of thought would | have produced much richer results if it had spent more time | pondering before trying to synthesize a sweeping summary. | | [0] The simplistic rules championed by many capital-L | "Libertarians" and other cryptofascists are a setup for failure, | but the general desire for individual liberty versus centralized | authority is not. | samirillian wrote: | > I find myself linking to this article way too much lately, but | here it is again: The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman. | You should read it. The summary is that in any system, if you | don't have an explicit hierarchy, then you have an implicit one. | | All hierarchies are structures but not all structures are | hierarchies. I'm not sure Jo Freeman argues _for_ explicit | hierarchy. | | CTRL-F the article. | | Structure - 92 Hierarchy - 0 | | https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-02 23:00 UTC)