Technical nihilism is all the rage but... can you really not tell the difference between be the U.S. and China on human rights?
Of course, you could reply to this comment with some gross injustice, and I could counter. But I'm generally curious. And if you do believe that that U.S. and China are the same, I guess my next question, because arguments seem to lead this way - how do you feel about what-aboutism?
They're not the same. For example, it's the U.S. that has the world's largest prison population and the world's most expensive healthcare, etc. China has different issues.
You're right that they have different issues, different problems, different strengths.
But what irks me is the "what-aboutism." If Texas executes handicap people, that's awful. But it makes China harvesting organs OK? The U.S. has a horrible track record in Latin America and (frankly) around the world, so China gets some "slack" in how many human rights activists or lawyers it jails each year?
I understand I'm responding to a larger idea and not your comment specifically but... your exact line of argument is used to justify basically everything China (and Russia, and a lot of people incidentally) does that is condemned by the international community
"So-and-so does it? Wake up you fucking sheep" is basically the locked-and-loaded phrase you can use to sound important and win any argument anytime, anywhere, and I think the tendency to fall back on that idea on HN hurts the community.
It's not good when the USA behaves like that, and it's not good when China behaves like that.
Hopefully, as America's hegemony declines relative to other actors, the resulting multipolar world is fairer for more people.
Monopolies aren't a good thing in the commercial sphere, and they aren't a good thing in the political sphere, both lend themselves to abusive practices by those who can go unchallenged.
This is a great comment - thank you for the contribution.
I sort of go back and forth on the point though. I also think monopolies enable and contribute to abuse - but I worry that the multipolar order would just breed new battle grounds for the various contenders to establish supremacy. On the one hand, you can get the space race (woo, the moon!), on the other hand, you can get the arms race (boo and/or complicated yay, nuclear weapons!).
That's what I'm getting at though - you should throw stones!
China being bad doesn't excuse the U.S, the U.S. being bad doesn't excuse China. But somehow, somewhere, in the rhetoric of HN (and let's face it, the internet) there's this idea that only the morally unimpeachable can criticize something. But in reality that just gives the worst actors carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't break some record or set a new standard for terribleness.
We're in a moral race to the bottom, and it doesn't help to say "because so-and-so did it." That just digs us deeper
Just be sure that, when throwing stones, you also throw them at the appropriate issues on your own side. Sure, criticize China, and criticize the US, as appropriate. That doesn't mean moral equivalence (they aren't equivalent), but it does mean not sweeping your own issues under the rug.
Sometimes I just have to laugh / cringe reading HN.
The detailed analysis of how this woman who wants to hold on to a piece of sentimental property is actually mistaken, is destroying the neighborhood, is willfully naive for not exploiting her position to make as much money as possible, etc, etc is predictable but tiring.
Fears about about "cash being the sole nexus between human beings" seem pretty realized on HN. It's as if no one - or at the very least the VC crowd - accepts that anyone could be doing anything _other_ than living their life in pursuit of profit.
And if they are, they're ignorant, naive - even selfish - for not aligning their intent with a profit motive.
Reminds me of the last cornfield in the middle of Silicon valley. The field is worth millions if sold to a real estate developer but every year without fail there is a new crop of corn planted and harvested. I imagine it belongs to some aging retiree who sits on his/her rocking chair and watches the corn grow while harried tech executives in Teslas navigate rush hour traffic on the Lawrence expressway.
I live in Irvine, CA. Broadcom just built a multi-billion dollar campus (that's my crude understanding, maybe it's wrong; I work with what I hear). They are juxtaposed on 2 sides by agriculture fields. It's interesting to think about, as I drive by it frequently (it's on the way to my wife's office and the freeway).
Except for one thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned. This is a common ploy on behalf of owners of real estate to get the highest price for the property w/o appearing openly that that is what they are doing. Of course it's always suspected that is what they are doing. But it's really old school. You say you don't want to sell, won't sell, not at any price, reject all offers until one comes along that is so high you finally engage in the transaction.
I have actually run into this before many times.
Also part of the tell tale sign is that she plans to rent it out. That is another signal that she just plans to wait. Most likely the lease will be written in a way that allows her to terminate it if she wants with some kind of liquidated damages payment.
Now I have seen people not want to sell 'at any price' genuinely because they do run a business, don't need the money, and most importantly (and this is key) it gives them something to do. Typically they are older people who want to show up for work every day. This woman doesn't fit that MO though.
I never really cared about making more than $5m until I realized that the profit motive[0] is going to destroy everything because it dumps everything into arms races and as human power goes up, due to increased scientific advancement and the accelerating search space for technological combinations that provide greater economies of attack asymmetry, negative externalities begin to dominate the world. Especially in areas where attribution is impossible, since deterrence isn't possible, or in areas where outcomes are unpredictable, for the same reason.
I just wanted to have fun and create a little garden for myself. Now I have to become some ugly combination of Soros, Orwell, and Nader[1] because the people with money right now are all people that cared about money, or—ethically better, but consequentially worse—they're techno-optimists.
[0] The feedback function, really. Startups are just organizations in search of a feedback function.
You're making some big leaps in your interpretation vs what's actually being said. I don't see a single comment saying she should sell because money is all that matters. A few comments are saying if she sold it to a housing developer that would create more housing - which is objectively true - and then asserting that more housing would be a good thing given the housing shortage - which is a value judgement you are free to disagree with, but not at all the same as saying profit is all that matters.
if she sold it to a housing developer that would create more housing
Maybe. In that neighborhood, it would likely be very expensive condos, which would likely not be rented by someone already living in New York. I really doubt the extent to which all this new luxury construction is actually easing the housing problem, versus just creating additional demand akin to what happens when you add a lane to a highway.
I feel like profits need a re-branding campaign. It's so easy to paint them as a negative, and even the most vocal capitalists will shrug and suggest they're something neutral.
Profits are a signal, and a powerful one at that. Outside of rent seeking, which I regard as fairly rare, profits signal that an entrepreneur is delivering value in excess of the costs to produce the value. Spread out over the size of a community, region, or nation, that's like magic!
Furthermore, they're not cold and unemotional, as is suggested here. Value almost always has an emotional component. The profitable condos that people want to build aren't going to be inhabited by automatons. They'll be inhabited by people - people who will date, get married, have children, people that will graduate from high school and college, people that will march in parades, protest in political movements, enjoy and create culture. To look at the value that companies want to create in this space like a shameless cash grabs ignores the very humanity that assigns that value in the first place.
Profits are not evil. They're a signal of efficient production of value, and value implies a benefit for humanity.
Profits are not evil on their own: the choices of which costs that are paid, and which costs are externalized (read: paid for by someone else without a correct combination of consent and total knowledge) all together add up to some value on the virtuous-neutral-vice scale.
Profits are what drives the economy forward. They provide the capital to expand operations and create new ones.
They also provide the surplus needed to deal with pollution and other externalities. It's not a coincidence that unfree economies are the worst environmental disasters.
> Outside of rent seeking, which I regard as fairly rare
This is a big assumption to make. Successful rent seeking is very much a constant interest of profitable organizations--why would a business leave low risk, high margin money on the table? Competition for rentier status would be just as lively as market competition were it not for regulation, and even with it the focus only shifts to competition for regulatory capture.
I feel like sweatshops need a re-branding campaign. It's so easy to paint them as a negative, and even the most vocal capitalists will shrug and suggest they're something neutral.
Sweatshops are a tool, and a powerful one at that. As opposed to outright slavery, which I regard as fairly rare, sweatshops are used by entrepreneurs to deliver value in excess of the costs to produce the value. Spread out over the size of a community, region, or nation, that's like magic!
Furthermore, they're not cold and unemotional, as is suggested here. Value almost always has an emotional component. The profitable clothes that sweatshops produce aren't going to be worn by automatons. They'll be worn by people - people who will date, get married, have children, people that will graduate from high school and college, people that will march in parades, protest in political movements, enjoy and create culture. To look at the value that companies want to create in sweatshops like a shameless cash grab ignores the very humanity that assigns that value in the first place.
Sweatshops are not evil. They're a tool for efficient production of value, and value implies a benefit for humanity.
People who work in sweatshops do so because the alternatives are worse. The sweatshops tend to disappear as the surrounding economy gets more prosperous, and people have more choices.
Fun to read this thread and see all the projects it spawned. It's a testament to how compelling the post and example are that they simply demand to be tinkered with.
I used the RNN to train a George RR Martin-sounding Twitter account. Really fun for a while - and drove home the "Unreasonable Effectiveness" part.
Our plan is to get our subscription numbers to at least 3,000 or 5,000 and then start charging employers to post jobs. We don't want to sell emails or let recruiters on the platform - we're devs too.
Thank you - even seeing that number is really helpful.
Did the topics of your books diverge significantly? One thing I'm balancing is moving out of security and into other areas.
My real, secret, ultimate goal would be to break into general interest nonfiction, which is of course completely different, but I'm content for now just moving on to other technical topics.
Of course, you could reply to this comment with some gross injustice, and I could counter. But I'm generally curious. And if you do believe that that U.S. and China are the same, I guess my next question, because arguments seem to lead this way - how do you feel about what-aboutism?