Five Levels of Hype(johannesklingebiel.de)
johannesklingebiel.de
Five Levels of Hype
https://johannesklingebiel.de/2022/01/12/hype-as-a-scale.html
105 comments
> Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has been pretty good at othering critics as “no-coiners” or lately with the phrase “have fun staying poor”.
I’m somebody that spends a good deal of time thinking deeply on cryptocurrencies and the implications to society. I believe they a positive, revolutionary step in the right direction of human liberty. And I’ll gladly acknowledge that it’s still speculative until it’s not.
But crypto, like any other movement, attracts total scumbags. It’s unfortunate because people who speak negatively only serve to undermine their group - whether it’s crypto or a social cause group etc. and often they, themselves, are the insecure ignorant one that don’t even deeply understand what they’re fighting for.
I’m somebody that spends a good deal of time thinking deeply on cryptocurrencies and the implications to society. I believe they a positive, revolutionary step in the right direction of human liberty. And I’ll gladly acknowledge that it’s still speculative until it’s not.
But crypto, like any other movement, attracts total scumbags. It’s unfortunate because people who speak negatively only serve to undermine their group - whether it’s crypto or a social cause group etc. and often they, themselves, are the insecure ignorant one that don’t even deeply understand what they’re fighting for.
IMO the technology blockchain has only demonstrated success in 1 application which is cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency has only demonstrated success in 2 applications: speculative investment and illegal online purchases. I would include NFT’s under the speculative investment category.
These applications are obviously problematic for 3 main reasons: it wastes enormous amounts of energy, the investment is often at the expense of less tech/financial savvy people, and most people don’t want it to be easier for criminals to conduct financial transactions.
IMO, it is not a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. It is a bunch of bad apples with a few good apples mixed in. Even if your motivations in working in this space are good (not simply for your own technical stimulation/amusement), you are trading off furthering/enabling real world harm now against optimistic speculation about future positive outcomes.
These applications are obviously problematic for 3 main reasons: it wastes enormous amounts of energy, the investment is often at the expense of less tech/financial savvy people, and most people don’t want it to be easier for criminals to conduct financial transactions.
IMO, it is not a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. It is a bunch of bad apples with a few good apples mixed in. Even if your motivations in working in this space are good (not simply for your own technical stimulation/amusement), you are trading off furthering/enabling real world harm now against optimistic speculation about future positive outcomes.
I disagree. I use crypto to protect against high inflation in my country and mantain the value of the fruits of my labour. Where does that fit in your categories?
Crypto and DeFi have a lot of applications, especially in third world countries with bad financial systems.
Crypto and DeFi have a lot of applications, especially in third world countries with bad financial systems.
> I use crypto to protect against high inflation in my country and mantain the value of the fruits of my labour. Where does that fit in your categories?
This is obviously speculative investment.
(Even if your local currency is so horrendous it lost more value than Bitcoin this month, less volatile ways of hedging exist. Maybe you bought lower or changed cryptoassets so you've gained far more than BTC fell, but that's speculative investment and trading, not maintaining value)
This is obviously speculative investment.
(Even if your local currency is so horrendous it lost more value than Bitcoin this month, less volatile ways of hedging exist. Maybe you bought lower or changed cryptoassets so you've gained far more than BTC fell, but that's speculative investment and trading, not maintaining value)
Its not. I am using stablecoins to hold currencies I wouldn't be able to hold because of capital controls.
So what you're saying is that you buy ETH for its utility of processing transactions on tokenized assets? And you get more value out of spending the ETH on gas than it cost you to purchase it?
That sure sounds like a useful product to me.
I think HN is so anti-crypto because so few people in the industry currently have your use-case.
Personally, I think what you're doing is exciting and helps put a value on the utility of paying to run these contracts.
That sure sounds like a useful product to me.
I think HN is so anti-crypto because so few people in the industry currently have your use-case.
Personally, I think what you're doing is exciting and helps put a value on the utility of paying to run these contracts.
Yes and it's also much easier to trade tokenized assets between people than bonds or other financial instruments.
Also the whole DeFi ecosystem allows you to use your tokenized assets in different ways, giving even more value to it.
I think many people have my use case, it's just that you can't really see it unless you live in a country with a very mismanaged central bank. Which in my opinion is becoming more and more common every day.
Also the whole DeFi ecosystem allows you to use your tokenized assets in different ways, giving even more value to it.
I think many people have my use case, it's just that you can't really see it unless you live in a country with a very mismanaged central bank. Which in my opinion is becoming more and more common every day.
How exactly is using stablecoin to hold money different than holding your wealth in USD? Is it an access thing?
In any case, many "stablecoins" are ponzi schemes waiting to burst. I would much rather use a government backed currency to hold wealth against inflation than something like Tether.
In any case, many "stablecoins" are ponzi schemes waiting to burst. I would much rather use a government backed currency to hold wealth against inflation than something like Tether.
The difference is you can't buy USD digitally.
You say that but imo having a currency that loses 50% it's value every year is worse than holding Tether. I don't trust Tether either and thats why I am holding DAI.
You say that but imo having a currency that loses 50% it's value every year is worse than holding Tether. I don't trust Tether either and thats why I am holding DAI.
>having a currency that loses 50% of it's value every year is worse than holding Tether
What are you talking about? Tether (and many "stablecoins" like it, including DAI) are entirely based around the idea that they are pegged to the US dollar. If USD has inflation or deflation, so does the coin. The "50%" figure is just completely made up, and you know it - inflation right now is pretty bad, but saying USD lost 50% of its value is just completely and utterly wrong.
>you can't buy USD digitally
...again, this is just blatantly untrue on every level. You can use almost any bank and they will convert it for you. Of course, they will take a fee, but that's much preferable than having to involve yourself with cryptocurrencies backed by cryptocurrencies backed by thin air. Tether is especially egregious with this, and I assume that's why you don't trust it - but from what I'm looking at, DAI is backed by USDC and ETH. MAYBE USDC is being honest with how much money they have, maybe they aren't, and ETH has some very obvious awful problems (e.g. the insane instability).
Overall, you haven't given me literally any reason to believe that holding the flavor-of-the-month stablecoin is in any way, shape, or form better than using actual US dollars.
What are you talking about? Tether (and many "stablecoins" like it, including DAI) are entirely based around the idea that they are pegged to the US dollar. If USD has inflation or deflation, so does the coin. The "50%" figure is just completely made up, and you know it - inflation right now is pretty bad, but saying USD lost 50% of its value is just completely and utterly wrong.
>you can't buy USD digitally
...again, this is just blatantly untrue on every level. You can use almost any bank and they will convert it for you. Of course, they will take a fee, but that's much preferable than having to involve yourself with cryptocurrencies backed by cryptocurrencies backed by thin air. Tether is especially egregious with this, and I assume that's why you don't trust it - but from what I'm looking at, DAI is backed by USDC and ETH. MAYBE USDC is being honest with how much money they have, maybe they aren't, and ETH has some very obvious awful problems (e.g. the insane instability).
Overall, you haven't given me literally any reason to believe that holding the flavor-of-the-month stablecoin is in any way, shape, or form better than using actual US dollars.
Please read the comment chain, I don't live in the US nor have the USD dollar as the currency of my country.
> The "50%" figure is just completely made up, and you know it - inflation right now is pretty bad, but saying USD lost 50% of its value is just completely and utterly wrong.
I am talking about the Argentine Peso not the US dollar. And this just makes my point stronger. If you think 6% (USD inflation right now) is pretty bad just imagine holding a currency with >50% inflation every year.
> ...again, this is just blatantly untrue on every level. You can use almost any bank and they will convert it for you.
What are you talking about? Not every place has a free market like in the US.
In Argentina the banks only sell you at most 200USD dollars per month and only if you meet very specific requirements. And that's what capital controls mean. The banks are not allowed to sell foreign currencies.
> The "50%" figure is just completely made up, and you know it - inflation right now is pretty bad, but saying USD lost 50% of its value is just completely and utterly wrong.
I am talking about the Argentine Peso not the US dollar. And this just makes my point stronger. If you think 6% (USD inflation right now) is pretty bad just imagine holding a currency with >50% inflation every year.
> ...again, this is just blatantly untrue on every level. You can use almost any bank and they will convert it for you.
What are you talking about? Not every place has a free market like in the US.
In Argentina the banks only sell you at most 200USD dollars per month and only if you meet very specific requirements. And that's what capital controls mean. The banks are not allowed to sell foreign currencies.
In the absence of a stable government backed currency it seems cryptocurrency could have some value. However, cryptocurrency is also unstable. You are speculating that holding crypto will be better over some period of time than any alternative value store you can access. That may well be true, but seems like that depends on what other options you have access to and would require more rigorous analysis of the tradeoffs. For example, if you were to say “crypto is a better currency than eggs” [1], that seems likely, but eggs don’t require internet access and specialized knowledge of a particular technology.
[1] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/07/19/w...
[1] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/07/19/w...
You are assuming I use BTC or ETH directly as currency but I use stablecoins like DAI which are pegged to the USD dollar.
This allows me to hold currencies I wouldn't be able to buy because of capital controls by the government.
This allows me to hold currencies I wouldn't be able to buy because of capital controls by the government.
“Where does that fit in your categories?”
It sounds like it falls mostly under illegal transactions because you are using crypto for something that would otherwise be illegal (avoiding capital controls). Is it technically illegal? I don’t know. Is it ethically wrong? I guess not directly. However, I imagine there are also a lot of nefarious reasons somebody might want to avoid capital controls which crypto could also help facilitate.
It sounds like it falls mostly under illegal transactions because you are using crypto for something that would otherwise be illegal (avoiding capital controls). Is it technically illegal? I don’t know. Is it ethically wrong? I guess not directly. However, I imagine there are also a lot of nefarious reasons somebody might want to avoid capital controls which crypto could also help facilitate.
It's illegal to buy dollars but not assets that track the USD dollar. Buying DAI is legal for the same reason buying USD denominated bonds is legal, they are not dollars and you are not taking them from the central bank.
And either way I don't think grouping "criminal transactions" with "stuff that's illegal in X country" is fair. At many points in history governments outlawed things that are very wrong (e.g. nazi germany) Just because someone doesn't want to succumb to corrupt institutions doesn't mean he/she is a bad guy.
And either way I don't think grouping "criminal transactions" with "stuff that's illegal in X country" is fair. At many points in history governments outlawed things that are very wrong (e.g. nazi germany) Just because someone doesn't want to succumb to corrupt institutions doesn't mean he/she is a bad guy.
Your government has capital controls (mentioned in a different response) to prevent you from purchasing foreign currency.
Which makes buying crypto (or stablecoin) illegal online purchase.
Illegal doesn't always means wrong or immoral, depends on whether the laws are good or not.
Which makes buying crypto (or stablecoin) illegal online purchase.
Illegal doesn't always means wrong or immoral, depends on whether the laws are good or not.
It's illegal to buy dollars.
I am buying an asset that is pegged to the USD dollar. That is not illegal neither is buying USD denominated bonds. In fact the goverment even has sold USD denominated bonds.
I am buying an asset that is pegged to the USD dollar. That is not illegal neither is buying USD denominated bonds. In fact the goverment even has sold USD denominated bonds.
Crypto is not practical or fair by design. It needs a steady supply of greater fools to operate, and the only future it's capable of creating is one where everything is monetized, corporatized and the wealthy is in charge, with no recourse for the rest of us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
All of civilization needs a never ending supply of greater fools to keep operating and reward the early investors.
We call them children.
If you don't want to participate in this ponzi, then chop wood and carry water until you can't anymore and let your body return to the earth.
We call them children.
If you don't want to participate in this ponzi, then chop wood and carry water until you can't anymore and let your body return to the earth.
I really did not like that video. There are some interesting ideas but the tone is insufferable for me, not a fan of superficial punchlines and logical fallacies wrapped as deep thoughts, no matter if I agree or not with the point.
>superficial punchlines and logical fallacies
I thought the writing and editing were excellent and well thought out. Can you give a specific example of when a logical fallacy was employed in the video?
I thought the writing and editing were excellent and well thought out. Can you give a specific example of when a logical fallacy was employed in the video?
Take the part 2: Personal comments on Vitalik, an history of scams during the period Ethereum was created but not directly related, a 100k grant Vitalik got which I fails to see the relevance too, a broad critic that can apply to any entrepreneur/programmer having a dunning kruger thinking they can easily disrupt an industry with software. Conclusion:
> In terms of improvment over Bitcoin, Ethereum has many. It's not hard. Bitcoin sucks. Ethereum solves none of them and introduce a whole new suite of problems driven by technofetishistic egotism of assuming that programmers are uniquely suited to solve society's problem.
It's nice prose but for me that part was really mostly appeal to emotions/ridicule and association/composition fallacies. To clarify the latter: scams and ridiculous marketing are a problem, but unfortunately that's not enough to make a logical point. Their proportion neither.
Again there are good points, but it's weirdly positioned. For me it's a rant, but instead it's presented as a calm scientific/neutral content which I don't find very honest (and quite ironic given the subject). But I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe it's just me misinterpreting the tone.
> In terms of improvment over Bitcoin, Ethereum has many. It's not hard. Bitcoin sucks. Ethereum solves none of them and introduce a whole new suite of problems driven by technofetishistic egotism of assuming that programmers are uniquely suited to solve society's problem.
It's nice prose but for me that part was really mostly appeal to emotions/ridicule and association/composition fallacies. To clarify the latter: scams and ridiculous marketing are a problem, but unfortunately that's not enough to make a logical point. Their proportion neither.
Again there are good points, but it's weirdly positioned. For me it's a rant, but instead it's presented as a calm scientific/neutral content which I don't find very honest (and quite ironic given the subject). But I'm not a native english speaker, so maybe it's just me misinterpreting the tone.
It is a rant, a well argued one, with a lot of salient points, IMO.
And ridicule is part of the point of text (not subtext) of the essay. Dan is making an emotional argument as much as he's making a logical one, because a lot of people will hear the emotional one where the logical one would just bounce off. Making something harmful actually seem uncool is a valid tactic, IMO.
Like, calling out Vitalik as a butthurt Warlock main is an attempt to make his origin story around the EVM seem to have a pathetic origin. Instead of applying himself to getting better at the new warlock meta, he went off and created a thing that has enabled a lot of real economic harm.
And pointing out the connection to Peter Thiel is as much about pointing out the involvement of big money in cryptocurrency as any specific character of Vitalik.
And it's not like Vitalik hasn't had a lot of chances to go "damn, the EVM is being used for a lot of harm. Maybe it wasn't worth it?"
Or maybe he has, and I (and Dan, because I think he'd have brought that up) have missed it?
And ridicule is part of the point of text (not subtext) of the essay. Dan is making an emotional argument as much as he's making a logical one, because a lot of people will hear the emotional one where the logical one would just bounce off. Making something harmful actually seem uncool is a valid tactic, IMO.
Like, calling out Vitalik as a butthurt Warlock main is an attempt to make his origin story around the EVM seem to have a pathetic origin. Instead of applying himself to getting better at the new warlock meta, he went off and created a thing that has enabled a lot of real economic harm.
And pointing out the connection to Peter Thiel is as much about pointing out the involvement of big money in cryptocurrency as any specific character of Vitalik.
And it's not like Vitalik hasn't had a lot of chances to go "damn, the EVM is being used for a lot of harm. Maybe it wasn't worth it?"
Or maybe he has, and I (and Dan, because I think he'd have brought that up) have missed it?
I watched the whole thing, which is too long. He gets a bit carried away at some points, but he doesn't seem to be factually wrong.
He makes a good point - cryptocurrencies are a transfer of money from late adopters to early adopters. That's implicit in anything where "line goes up" but there is no revenue, no dividends, it's zero sum, and there's no exit.
The NFT thing seems to be on the way out. The NFT industry is Axie Infinity, OpenSea, Bored Ape Yacht Club, and the little guys. Axie Infinity recently crashed hard. Their Smooth Love Potion token, the one players grind for, is down to $0.01246 (was around $0.35 at peak). Their other token, Axie, is down to about half the peak. OpenSea seems to be stalling out with limited liquidity - too many items with high prices but no bids. People are frantically issuing new NFTs every day, but the available sucker supply seems to have dried up. It's hard to tell, because wash sales to pump the price are so easy in the NFT space. This whole thing is starting to look like Pet Rock 2.0.
Bitcoin and Etherium don't look so good right now. Both are around half of peak.
He makes a good point - cryptocurrencies are a transfer of money from late adopters to early adopters. That's implicit in anything where "line goes up" but there is no revenue, no dividends, it's zero sum, and there's no exit.
The NFT thing seems to be on the way out. The NFT industry is Axie Infinity, OpenSea, Bored Ape Yacht Club, and the little guys. Axie Infinity recently crashed hard. Their Smooth Love Potion token, the one players grind for, is down to $0.01246 (was around $0.35 at peak). Their other token, Axie, is down to about half the peak. OpenSea seems to be stalling out with limited liquidity - too many items with high prices but no bids. People are frantically issuing new NFTs every day, but the available sucker supply seems to have dried up. It's hard to tell, because wash sales to pump the price are so easy in the NFT space. This whole thing is starting to look like Pet Rock 2.0.
Bitcoin and Etherium don't look so good right now. Both are around half of peak.
At the end of the day, it is a video which serves to further actual discussion. There are going to be points where he gets "carried away" because that's the entire point - simply listing the facts doesn't really contribute much, the video uses the facts that we have and extrapolates a conclusion. Crypto currencies, in their current state, are just learning WHY centralized systems exist. While we all would love to be decentralized all the time (and some decentralization is a good idea!), these people end up just using centralized systems to more easily manage their "decentralized" systems.
And really, I don't think this should be surprising for most people. This is exactly what happened to Email - a decentralized system that also just happens to be 90% controlled by 1 company because people much prefer the benefits of centralization to the "freedoms" of decentralization.
And really, I don't think this should be surprising for most people. This is exactly what happened to Email - a decentralized system that also just happens to be 90% controlled by 1 company because people much prefer the benefits of centralization to the "freedoms" of decentralization.
Crypto is different because the scumbags are motivated by the currencies themselves.
I suppose this was supposed to sound like a snappy argument? It’s a bland, impactless statement. Even if scumbags are infatuated with something, it can still have legitimate and beneficial uses / users.
And the comment’s wrong too… the scumbags probably want to cash their gains out to traditional currencies, they’re least likely to be in it as technology true believers.
And the comment’s wrong too… the scumbags probably want to cash their gains out to traditional currencies, they’re least likely to be in it as technology true believers.
I think what he was trying to say is that saying "crypto attracts scumbags" puts the onus purely on consumers of the tech, when in fact a lot of the scummy behavior, hype and fraud is planned and encouraged by the people implementing the technology, not only their users. That's a significant departure from "any other movement".
> That's a significant departure from "any other movement".
Exactly this. There are scumbags in every movement, but crypto has structural incentives for scumbaggery that make it distinct.
Exactly this. There are scumbags in every movement, but crypto has structural incentives for scumbaggery that make it distinct.
> Even if scumbags are infatuated with something,
Nobody is taking about infatuation except you.
Obviously the comment is talking about the incentive for people to try to drive the value of their holdings up.
The scumbags are the ones who do this dishonestly.
> And the comment’s wrong too… the scumbags probably want to cash their gains out to traditional currencies, they’re least likely to be in it as technology true believers.
No. Anyone can be a scumbag. It has nothing to do with being in it for a quick buck or being a true believer or not. It’s simply about what methods one is willing to use.
So yes, Hodlers, and crypto-utopians can be scumbags too.
Nobody is taking about infatuation except you.
Obviously the comment is talking about the incentive for people to try to drive the value of their holdings up.
The scumbags are the ones who do this dishonestly.
> And the comment’s wrong too… the scumbags probably want to cash their gains out to traditional currencies, they’re least likely to be in it as technology true believers.
No. Anyone can be a scumbag. It has nothing to do with being in it for a quick buck or being a true believer or not. It’s simply about what methods one is willing to use.
So yes, Hodlers, and crypto-utopians can be scumbags too.
I wish the chart had a negative dimension as well, or if not a negative one, then increase the number of levels of hype.
I say this because as I read it, I think how little hype I put into some of my work, so little that it may not even register on the base level of hype. The downplaying, even discounting successes or achievements I've attained with products and such.
Perhaps such things don't belong there as they're almost the opposite of hype, and yet I think it would help me see the full spectrum of promotion and help me navigate it more confidently.
I say this because as I read it, I think how little hype I put into some of my work, so little that it may not even register on the base level of hype. The downplaying, even discounting successes or achievements I've attained with products and such.
Perhaps such things don't belong there as they're almost the opposite of hype, and yet I think it would help me see the full spectrum of promotion and help me navigate it more confidently.
As someone who used to have a similar level of "humility", i always felt uncomfortable doing self-promotion. You will also notice that others are much more serious about self-promotion. To the level where there is not much substance when you investigate. I have resigned to the view that, this is the society we live in. Things may always not be as they seem, one has to look closer and recognize the diamonds in the rough.
Good idea.
I was also thinking about 'negativity', but more along the lines of: I'm missing the author saying what the legal gray areas are. I mean, in level 2 he already talks about "fraud". ;)
I was also thinking about 'negativity', but more along the lines of: I'm missing the author saying what the legal gray areas are. I mean, in level 2 he already talks about "fraud". ;)
Ah yea, I like that idea of maybe talking about the legal risks or overall cons (pun intended) of the different levels :-)
I like this for several reasons, mostly because I like people trying to be somewhat concrete and quantitative about ideas that have a lot of saliency but tend to be thrown around only conceptually. The scale also makes some sense to be based on experience.
I'm not sure the ratings of all the examples are quite right; some of them I think might be over or underhyped more than the author proposes. This isn't too big of a deal to me though, as it seems more like misapplication of the scale rather than the scale itself.
The other thing I might suggest is that I'm not sure the 3-4-5 levels are all that distinct, especially 4 and 5.
Most importantly along these lines, my experience is that the "othering" level can happen well within the realm of 3 and 4. so although I agree that the "othering" phenomenon occurs, I don't see it as distinct from 3 and 4, it's just that the magnitude of it increases as you go up in hype. "Othering" seems like another component dimension, along with present vs future focus and empirical basis for claims.
So something like this with levels 3-5 compressed, or maybe just 4-5, makes a lot of sense to me, like it's something you could maybe actually apply in some kind of scientific study.
I'm not sure the ratings of all the examples are quite right; some of them I think might be over or underhyped more than the author proposes. This isn't too big of a deal to me though, as it seems more like misapplication of the scale rather than the scale itself.
The other thing I might suggest is that I'm not sure the 3-4-5 levels are all that distinct, especially 4 and 5.
Most importantly along these lines, my experience is that the "othering" level can happen well within the realm of 3 and 4. so although I agree that the "othering" phenomenon occurs, I don't see it as distinct from 3 and 4, it's just that the magnitude of it increases as you go up in hype. "Othering" seems like another component dimension, along with present vs future focus and empirical basis for claims.
So something like this with levels 3-5 compressed, or maybe just 4-5, makes a lot of sense to me, like it's something you could maybe actually apply in some kind of scientific study.
Kind of similar to this Conspiracy Levels chart that was making the rounds a few months ago[1], including the crucial “departure from reality” tipping point, and the “XYZ as your group identity” level. No doubt promoters of major conspiracies have studied marketing, as they are are adept at generating belief and hype out of nothing.
1: https://m.imgur.com/XY5PAvd
1: https://m.imgur.com/XY5PAvd
George Soros is a conspiracy theory? No, he's a real guy who has spent many millions to influence politics. How does somebody put together something so stupid as that chart? It's really impressive.
The conspiracy angle here is not that he's spent a lot of money to influence politics, which is a fact, but that conspiracy types have rounded that up to "Soros is one of the shadowy puppet masters pulling the strings behind the scenes, like the Illuminati".
Here's one example, but the rabbit hole is deep.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90247335/a-timeline-of-george-so...
Here's one example, but the rabbit hole is deep.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90247335/a-timeline-of-george-so...
Covid coming from a lab is 'leaving science"? Well I'm glad whoever made that chart has it all figured out.
Yes, they need to update that list.
Jamie Metzel [1] makes a very rational case that the Lab Leak theory is very likely. Check out is interview with Lex. It's more than 4 hours long (!), but worth a listen.
[1] https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/
Jamie Metzel [1] makes a very rational case that the Lab Leak theory is very likely. Check out is interview with Lex. It's more than 4 hours long (!), but worth a listen.
[1] https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/
I think there are two theories that get conflated: 1) it was experimentation and leaked out of the lab accidentally and 2) it was weaponization and leaked out of the lab intentionally.
I think sometimes one person says the former and another hears the latter and vice versa.
I think sometimes one person says the former and another hears the latter and vice versa.
Also, conflation between "a coronavirus escaping lab which studied animal coronaviruses is a plausible origin for an outbreak in humans", which is a well-supported claim and "SARs-COV-2 can't be a natural virus", which isn't (even before all the extraneous group identity stuff is added on). Seems the designer of the graphic was focused on the latter argument when he said "made in lab".
The creator of that graphic seems to have actually done so, at
https://twitter.com/abbieasr/status/1462953203067240450
"COVID-19 made in lab" has been revised to the narrower "COVID is a bioweapon". The remainder of the original broader claim ("COVID arose from reckless but not malicious virological research") appears nowhere on the new chart.
Of course the new chart then puts "Iran Contra" in the same category as "UFOs"; so infographics are perhaps not the best arbiters of truth in general.
https://twitter.com/abbieasr/status/1462953203067240450
"COVID-19 made in lab" has been revised to the narrower "COVID is a bioweapon". The remainder of the original broader claim ("COVID arose from reckless but not malicious virological research") appears nowhere on the new chart.
Of course the new chart then puts "Iran Contra" in the same category as "UFOs"; so infographics are perhaps not the best arbiters of truth in general.
The chart is a bit politicized and kind of rubbish.
There is absolutely such a thing as a 'Deep State' and a 'New World Order'.
For god's sake, the 'Project for a New American Century' think-tank published their vision for America in the 21st century and broadly used the term 'Pax Americana' and indicated a massive military buildup, specifically in the Middle East. The signatories: Cheney, Jeb Bush, Wolfowizth, Andy Card - and a handful of others, would occupy the White House a few years later and use 'Terrorism' as an excuse to invade Iraq. And of course the 'New World Order' term came out of Bush Sr's speech.
That 2000's neocon movement fits exactly into 'New World Order' concerns, among others.
The 'Deep State' is absolutely real. The Pentagon, CIA and NSA have massive parts of their budgets detailed as 'Black Budgets' with limited Congressional oversight. There's ample evidence of problems there, that's not controversial. But even in the public bureaucracy, there are power centres that have ideological and political motivations. Sometimes organically developed, sometimes because a particular administration 'stacked' an agency.
While terms such as 'New World Order' and 'Deep State' are used as lightning rods for huge conspiracies and misinformation, there's considerable legitimacy about the issues more broadly.
It's actually a social problem, because such terms are picked up by the 'Alt Right' and others, they can hardly be used in polite conversation for fear of being misunderstood, but they are real problems.
Finally - 'COVID as a Bioweapon' shouldn't be in that category. It absolutely could have been developed as part of a bio-weapons program, that's not likely, but it's not conspiracy theory either.
Those advanced labs are absolutely being used for military purposes of some kinds, and given the information made available by Metzel and others, there's reason to consider (though not likely) that the research would have been part of a broader strategy of the CCP, which includes bioweapons research.
Bioweapons are real, they are developed and contemplated for use by various powers. That is not a conspiracy theory.
The chart illustrates a few other points which are politicized - moreover, I wouldn't agree at all with the layering/characterizations to begin with.
It's just not a good chart.
There is absolutely such a thing as a 'Deep State' and a 'New World Order'.
For god's sake, the 'Project for a New American Century' think-tank published their vision for America in the 21st century and broadly used the term 'Pax Americana' and indicated a massive military buildup, specifically in the Middle East. The signatories: Cheney, Jeb Bush, Wolfowizth, Andy Card - and a handful of others, would occupy the White House a few years later and use 'Terrorism' as an excuse to invade Iraq. And of course the 'New World Order' term came out of Bush Sr's speech.
That 2000's neocon movement fits exactly into 'New World Order' concerns, among others.
The 'Deep State' is absolutely real. The Pentagon, CIA and NSA have massive parts of their budgets detailed as 'Black Budgets' with limited Congressional oversight. There's ample evidence of problems there, that's not controversial. But even in the public bureaucracy, there are power centres that have ideological and political motivations. Sometimes organically developed, sometimes because a particular administration 'stacked' an agency.
While terms such as 'New World Order' and 'Deep State' are used as lightning rods for huge conspiracies and misinformation, there's considerable legitimacy about the issues more broadly.
It's actually a social problem, because such terms are picked up by the 'Alt Right' and others, they can hardly be used in polite conversation for fear of being misunderstood, but they are real problems.
Finally - 'COVID as a Bioweapon' shouldn't be in that category. It absolutely could have been developed as part of a bio-weapons program, that's not likely, but it's not conspiracy theory either.
Those advanced labs are absolutely being used for military purposes of some kinds, and given the information made available by Metzel and others, there's reason to consider (though not likely) that the research would have been part of a broader strategy of the CCP, which includes bioweapons research.
Bioweapons are real, they are developed and contemplated for use by various powers. That is not a conspiracy theory.
The chart illustrates a few other points which are politicized - moreover, I wouldn't agree at all with the layering/characterizations to begin with.
It's just not a good chart.
The difference is that chart you linked is actually reasonably well-made.
The worst offenders in recent memory are self driving cars, block chain, VR, and “the metaverse”.
NFTs, Theranos, AR, AI/ML, No/Low Code.
"No Man's Sky" is also an interesting case study.
"No Man's Sky" is also an interesting case study.
Not sure how AR, AI/ML or even No Mans Sky belong to the same list as NFTs. No Mans Sky has delivered on many things over time and chances are you used AI for something today even if you aren't aware of it. Maybe you mean AGI and how near in the future some promised it to be. AR is too early to even judge, with only Microsoft investing into it out of the reputable companies AFAIK.
I do think there's a spectrum of pathological hype. On the one hand, there is manufactured hype, the NFTs and Theranos-end of the spectrum; on the other hand, there is hype from mismanaged expectations, the NMS side of the spectrum.
While NMS did eventually get their act together, what they delivered on launch was very much not aligned with the expectations.
AI solutions are hyped because they are AI solutions, not because of what they actually deliver. It's not that it has no uses, but the promises do not match up with the reality. Often it's enough to solve an already previously solved problem with AI to generate hype around a product, even if the AI solution is strictly worse than what's already on the market.
While NMS did eventually get their act together, what they delivered on launch was very much not aligned with the expectations.
AI solutions are hyped because they are AI solutions, not because of what they actually deliver. It's not that it has no uses, but the promises do not match up with the reality. Often it's enough to solve an already previously solved problem with AI to generate hype around a product, even if the AI solution is strictly worse than what's already on the market.
"No Man's Sky" is a fascinating example. I was really worried that was going to be a repeat of Spore.
Cyberpunk 2077
> “the metaverse”
I’m probably in some kind of bubble, but is that hyped? I mainly hear about it on HN, maybe a bunch of joking off-hand comments on Reddit. No one else seem to care about it at all. So, my bubble in Germany, or is it actually a thing in the USA?
I’m probably in some kind of bubble, but is that hyped? I mainly hear about it on HN, maybe a bunch of joking off-hand comments on Reddit. No one else seem to care about it at all. So, my bubble in Germany, or is it actually a thing in the USA?
One of the largest companies in the world has recently renamed itself Meta (verse is strongly implied), so on some level it must have a decent amount of hype.
Metaverse is something that is happening for a long time now. The Zuckerberg-Metaverse is just the latest step in this development that gave the fire new fuel. Maybe because of this slow burning hype the general impression of it is rather low.
Even fairly mainstream news already went on about how the Microsoft acquisition of Activision is all about Microsoft getting ready for metaverse.
I gave up on German tech news 5 years ago.
They're always behind.
They're always behind.
As someone whose German is rusty and is try to not lose it, what kind of German media you think is worth the trouble?, in other words, publications where you will find insights that are not simply a repetition/regurgitation of what it is said in English.
I’d say that depends on what kind of information you want? For tech it’s hard. While I don’t like them, heise [0] has decent news. For general news, Spiegel [1] or FAZ [2] are some big ones, getting scoops once in a while that get rehashed by the international media.
[0]: https://heise.de
[1]: https://spiegel.de/
[2]: https://www.faz.net/
[0]: https://heise.de
[1]: https://spiegel.de/
[2]: https://www.faz.net/
Self-driving cars, yes, but I'd say AI/ML in general reached at least level 3/4 at some point over the past few years. Seems to be cooling off a bit these days, though.
What about 3D printing ? It’s tame now but I remember how it was supposed to change a lot of things in our every day life.
I know a few people who make movie props - for their use case, 3D printing has basically displaced other ways of making practical props.
I think it has also revolutionised the industrial/product design/small batch manufacturing processes.
Another huge potentiality is metal 3D printing. Many aerospace companies consider 3D printed parts the future of rocketry/aircrafts.
I think it has also revolutionised the industrial/product design/small batch manufacturing processes.
Another huge potentiality is metal 3D printing. Many aerospace companies consider 3D printed parts the future of rocketry/aircrafts.
[deleted]
This chart should be rewritten in Rust.
Hah I was also thinking how neatly these categories fit into the worst examples of language evangelism. Some are definitely at this stage!
> Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has been pretty good at othering critics as “no-coiners” or lately with the phrase “have fun staying poor”.
> Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has been pretty good at othering critics as “no-coiners” or lately with the phrase “have fun staying poor”.
That should be Level 6.
I don't agree with the categorization of “full self-driving” as "LEVEL 2: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS".
There is no proof that self driving cars will ever be able to navigate in e.g. European cities with narrow streets and without lines on them.
Full driving would mean driving autonomous everywhere and between a highway with visible signs and lines and streets without any markings is a big difference.
its more like "LEVEL 3: UTOPIAN FUTURES" because there is the potential for it but no current systems can handle difficult situations in streets without clear markings.
There is no proof that self driving cars will ever be able to navigate in e.g. European cities with narrow streets and without lines on them.
Full driving would mean driving autonomous everywhere and between a highway with visible signs and lines and streets without any markings is a big difference.
its more like "LEVEL 3: UTOPIAN FUTURES" because there is the potential for it but no current systems can handle difficult situations in streets without clear markings.
> There is no proof
That’s an odd requirement. There is no proof Intel will ever put out a faster chip. There is in general no proof for any new technology because it hasn’t been built yet.
Narrow city streets aren’t vastly different than normal city streets, and people used to constantly say sure operating on highways is easy, show me self driving cars inside cities. I think people underestimate how long self driving cars are going to take, but they are already good enough to be useful which means companies will continually invest in being just a little bit better.
Looking back automatic transmissions took decades and where seriously flawed for most of that time, but just a little bit better every year and eventually they became the default. Cruse control and every other major innovation went through that same cycle, it’s just that once something is good enough to be the default it has been around so long nobody wakes up and says “wow it’s finally ready” because it’s been in use for a long time.
IMO, take everything people are generally expecting self driving to be in 2030 and it’s going to be ready in 2060 and the default by 2090.
That’s an odd requirement. There is no proof Intel will ever put out a faster chip. There is in general no proof for any new technology because it hasn’t been built yet.
Narrow city streets aren’t vastly different than normal city streets, and people used to constantly say sure operating on highways is easy, show me self driving cars inside cities. I think people underestimate how long self driving cars are going to take, but they are already good enough to be useful which means companies will continually invest in being just a little bit better.
Looking back automatic transmissions took decades and where seriously flawed for most of that time, but just a little bit better every year and eventually they became the default. Cruse control and every other major innovation went through that same cycle, it’s just that once something is good enough to be the default it has been around so long nobody wakes up and says “wow it’s finally ready” because it’s been in use for a long time.
IMO, take everything people are generally expecting self driving to be in 2030 and it’s going to be ready in 2060 and the default by 2090.
Here's WeRide testing in an urban village area of China.[1] The system is being very cautious, but is doing fine.
Here's Waymo, dealing with San Francisco streets.[2] Right now, Waymo is offering some rides in SF on a trial basis. Fully autonomous. No safety driver. 29 cameras, some radars, multiple LIDAR units. Full hemisphere coverage for each sensor.
It's getting steadily closer.
[1] https://twitter.com/i/status/1400772458991407113
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CVInKMz9cA
Here's Waymo, dealing with San Francisco streets.[2] Right now, Waymo is offering some rides in SF on a trial basis. Fully autonomous. No safety driver. 29 cameras, some radars, multiple LIDAR units. Full hemisphere coverage for each sensor.
It's getting steadily closer.
[1] https://twitter.com/i/status/1400772458991407113
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CVInKMz9cA
I agree with your comment, but I understood the author's level 2 as something which can be realized with existing technology. Meaning there is already a prototype.
There is no prototype for complete full driving, including very difficult situations - so I see that as level 3.
There is no prototype for complete full driving, including very difficult situations - so I see that as level 3.
Level 2 says Tomorrow as in technology that’s in development. I read Level 3 as when people talk about the potential for say intersections without traffic lights and the end to gridlock. That’s not just exaggeration or extrapolation of current research but hopeful projections without anything even vaguely in the pipeline for development. Aka the semantic web and other rather grandiose ideas.
The first generation of cruse control didn’t shift gears making it useless for maintaining speed up and down steep hills but it provided the basic functionality on a reasonable subset of roads. It was still called cruse control. So, my point was a Tesla’s ability to drive from a limited set of parking spaces to another set of parking spaces by crossing public streets, covers the basic description of self driving. It’s a poor implementation but fulfills the basic premise of you not having to turn the steering wheel and ending up your destination even if it has a host of limitations. Doing that but in Paris is really more of the same.
(Edited the above several times.)
The first generation of cruse control didn’t shift gears making it useless for maintaining speed up and down steep hills but it provided the basic functionality on a reasonable subset of roads. It was still called cruse control. So, my point was a Tesla’s ability to drive from a limited set of parking spaces to another set of parking spaces by crossing public streets, covers the basic description of self driving. It’s a poor implementation but fulfills the basic premise of you not having to turn the steering wheel and ending up your destination even if it has a host of limitations. Doing that but in Paris is really more of the same.
(Edited the above several times.)
How would one build a prototype for "complete full driving" ?
Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping beacons one day, much like they were equipped with street lamps and canalization in the previous centuries.
Anyway, this is a fairly low percentage of the total street network. Even in Prague the medieval center is smallish (and many of those streets are off-limits to regular car traffic).
Anyway, this is a fairly low percentage of the total street network. Even in Prague the medieval center is smallish (and many of those streets are off-limits to regular car traffic).
> Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping beacons one day
That changes the goal posts in my opinion. The “self” part of “self-driving” no longer applies.
That changes the goal posts in my opinion. The “self” part of “self-driving” no longer applies.
I mean, many people can't drive without safety features all over their cars, GPS to help them navigate, and road signs to tell them where to go.
I don't see how "helping beacons" for robots are unfair but street lights are not.
I don't see how "helping beacons" for robots are unfair but street lights are not.
Maybe I’m drawing conclusions about what these beacons would do, but if any of the things you mentioned stop working, I can still drive and won’t go full speed into a wall. I don’t have the same confidence in these beacons.
Why would a car that is having trouble orienting itself go full speed?
Software bug? I think you’re dodging the point a bit - going into a wall at any speed is bad.
Alternatively, say it has trouble orienting itself and slows down. That can be just as dangerous if cars behind you are going fast (e.g. a highway).
Alternatively, say it has trouble orienting itself and slows down. That can be just as dangerous if cars behind you are going fast (e.g. a highway).
Does it matter? If investing in smart infrastructure is what it takes to recognize this reality, who is this a downside for? It's like saying we can't build any more intersections because we'd have to buy traffic lights.
I’m criticizing the “self-driving” term, which seems to be having more and more asterisks applied to it. What’s next, the cars will need tracks?
Honestly, small streets where there's really only one thing you can do (go straight forward but don't drive into anything) are not as hard as where cars are already driving today because the speeds are very low and the distances you have to consider are are pretty short. This is not like making unprotected lefts across 6 lanes of traffic in Beijing.
The hype around "full self driving" is exaggerated because today it's not even "limited self driving," let alone SOTA.
The hype around "full self driving" is exaggerated because today it's not even "limited self driving," let alone SOTA.
Did you ever drove through e.g. city centers in Europe or Asia?
There are not only missing lines but it's often also used by many people which walk on it. A self driving system doesn't only have to figure out where the steet ends and walkways begins but also has to correctly detect many moving people and animals.
Additionally, there are frequently side streets or walkways which are not mapped in every map database...
There are not only missing lines but it's often also used by many people which walk on it. A self driving system doesn't only have to figure out where the steet ends and walkways begins but also has to correctly detect many moving people and animals.
Additionally, there are frequently side streets or walkways which are not mapped in every map database...
Yes. My point is that detecting people is not hard and everyone but Tesla already seems very good at it. What's hard is understanding what they want to do and reacting to it. That part is much easier if everything is going 10 mph or less.
Detecting inconspicuous transition between sidewalk and road is difficult, but if you haven't noticed, human drivers don't seem to care much about it either.
Detecting inconspicuous transition between sidewalk and road is difficult, but if you haven't noticed, human drivers don't seem to care much about it either.
The tech industry has always been bullish on "the future" so I don't think this is different today; what does feel different is it seems hype is now the end product vs. hype about the underlying advancement. This may be inevitable in the highly commercialized, mature space that the internet has become.
Ah, the El*n M*sk model of marketing.
Hyperloop? Cybertruck? Fully self driving cars?
Hyperloop? Cybertruck? Fully self driving cars?
Nicely observed. This has more to do with how people think than how the world works; which means that no step of the hype train here needs to be connected to reality in any way. The product doesn't have to even exist to benefit from hype; that's how religions and dancing plagues happen.
More on dancing plagues for the unfamiliar:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_plague_of_1518
This doesn't just apply to new technology but also social/political/economic ideas too. I would have liked to see levels beyond 5 (i.e. the part where reality catches back up, the hype collapses, the backlash starts, etc)
Maybe "collapse" isn't itself a "level of hype", but something separate from hype.
But I agree that this applies to things other than technology. Sometimes it seems like most political movements lie somewhere between levels 3 and 5.
But I agree that this applies to things other than technology. Sometimes it seems like most political movements lie somewhere between levels 3 and 5.
I feel like this article itself is overhyped. I don't really see anything ground-breaking here, and the author doesn't really elaborate on why the examples fit into the arbitrary categories given.
> This categorization is intended to help people better understand which form of hype they‘re confronted with.
> I hope this categorization is helpful for you to understand which form of hype you‘re confronted with.
But to what end? No mention of what you can actually do with this information. I guess it's useful if you want to try to sound like the smartest person in the room when explaining it to average people who only dabble in keeping up with tech trends. They probably won't question you. The fact that the draft image went viral on Twitter is case in point.
I'd even venture to say that this probably deserves a flag.
> This categorization is intended to help people better understand which form of hype they‘re confronted with.
> I hope this categorization is helpful for you to understand which form of hype you‘re confronted with.
But to what end? No mention of what you can actually do with this information. I guess it's useful if you want to try to sound like the smartest person in the room when explaining it to average people who only dabble in keeping up with tech trends. They probably won't question you. The fact that the draft image went viral on Twitter is case in point.
I'd even venture to say that this probably deserves a flag.
Why would having a technology as a part of group identity lead to utopian claims? Unless the group/technology feels threatened.
Linux is an important part of my identity and I will happily watch how infidels struggle with their malware-ridden proprietary tech, knowing most of them can't be saved anyway.
Linux is an important part of my identity and I will happily watch how infidels struggle with their malware-ridden proprietary tech, knowing most of them can't be saved anyway.
Linux already went through its hype cycle like 20 years ago. I'd say the high water mark of that cycle was around the release of Cathedral and the Bazaar and the destruction of the VA Linux stock.
Now it's deeply in the plateau of productivity.
Now it's deeply in the plateau of productivity.
I'm a Linux fanboy too, but let's not fool ourselves. If Linux ever went "mainstream", then the amount of malware targeting it would rise precipitously. See: Android
Linux doesn't need malware because what use can scammers get out of someone who can't even afford a MacBook? /s
See rich people who "dress down".
Desktop is falling out of favour anyway, so its potential impact is debatable.
I am not sure if there is a linear trajectory. With some hypes the "othering" starts early and itself acts as a booster for hype, by creating the "initiated" group that everyone wants to be a part of.
Also, unrelated, but for some reason, while reading, I kept thinking that COVID-19 vaccines fit all these levels quite well.
Also, unrelated, but for some reason, while reading, I kept thinking that COVID-19 vaccines fit all these levels quite well.
[deleted]
Quantum computing scores high as well on the hype scale.
airhorns
Still, the trend seems to be: 1. New technology, over promises 2. Marketing latches onto the overpromise and bolsters it, regardless of lack of research 3. Companies built around the technology fail, until a few find the niche the technology fits into.
Makes you wonder how much money is wasted on just trying to capitalize on new tech. The last company I worked for wasted loads chasing the latest and greatest.
[1]: https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3887767/understanding-g...