Thank you for holding up a mirror, dang! Being publicly called out came as a bit of shock and really got me thinking.
The comment above really isn't me. Or rather, it is clearly me (since I posted it), but I don't want it to be.
Where I disagree with you is the implication that undesirable people bring bad behavior with them and pollute this site. I think it's the opposite: something about this site brings out the worst in otherwise reasonable people. Or maybe it's all social media.
In any case, the negative effects clearly outweigh the benefits from participation. This will be the last comment from this account; I'll send a request for deletion. Thank you for accidentally curing my HN addiction! I'll be mindful of the door on my way out :)
This attitude is very common with software engineers and I find it baffling. Is it some kind of inferiority complex? I doubt Warren Buffett worries that he is overpaid and demands to be woken up in the middle of the night for some self-flagellation. So why do so many software engineers think "I am paid well so I deserve whatever the company throws at me"? You are selling something: your skills, expertise, and time on this planet. These things are limited and valuable. Negotiate the price and terms of the sale!
Sure, security is a good idea, but how far do you want to escalate it? If you visit a higher-end store or a bank in Latin America or the Caribbean you'll likely see a security guard or two with a shotgun. I'm not anti-gun, but I don't want to live in an environment where this is the norm.
The ultimate root cause is extreme inequality driving some people to act out. If people's lives are generally tolerable, fewer will feel justified in stealing a luxury item. I think it's less about the handbag and more about giving a middle finger to the established order. And no, I'm not saying we should give criminals carte blanche, or that the status quo is fine. But there is certainly a correlation between inequality and crime and focusing only on security isn't the whole answer.
In summary, we should replace one impossible and nebulous goal ("infinite growth") with another ("post-scarcity society"). Human societies seem to be organized around chasing dangling carrots like these as a method to steer resources, but make no mistake: the kind of carrot that is dangled makes little difference.
The article talks about Communism, but fails to mention that the USSR did not consider itself to be Communist. Rather, all the inhabitants were working on "building Communism" and once achieved everyone in the world would enjoy a post-scarcity society. Surely such a grand goal justified poor living condition - that are temporary anyway? Don't you believe in the vision of the party?
Agreed! I periodically burn some karma on this point and should probably stop. Most people are brainwashed to believe the system they live under is the bestestest and won't even consider any other alternative. Indeed this unfailing belief is necessary for the whole thing to work.
When you point out to them that political systems fight for their own survival, just like organisms and memes do they call that "whataboutism". But fundamentally we are all humans and we function about the same way the world over.
In times of stress we humans put a ruthless dictator in charge as a last-ditch Hail Mary. Once conditions improve we replace them with something more suitable. Trying to "enlighten" an impoverished place like Afghanistan is misguided and just keeps their society stuck. But most people think dictators are mysterious aliens that arrive out of nowhere and start oppressing the poor masses.
Before you click that downvote button, think for a second. Imagine that America was a place of poverty and desperation. Whom would Americans elect? Oh wait, we already know who middle America made president back in 2016. The way to get people to elect friendlier governments is to make their environment better, not moralize.
Imagine saying "Yeah, there are human feces all over my living room and kitchen, but the bedrooms are clean. Overall it is a great place to live."
Whenever I visit SF I run into someone who looks like an extra from a zombie movie every time, without fail. Sometimes they "violently beg" by lunging at your feet as you walk past. Scream obscenities. Offer stolen goods at red lights. And if you somehow don't see them you can certainly smell them.
Just because we collectively got desensitized doesn't make all this OK.
One may wonder what exactly is the point in a human watching this auto-playing game system, and whether they'd be better off watching a movie... But another way to look at it is as a preview of the future.
Just picture this: a world of machines battling it out for supremacy, and somewhere off to the side there is an almost forgotten human brain. It seems to serve no discernible purpose, and yet it is actually the reason all the machines exist. What they are actually fighting to optimize, unbeknownst to them, is the dopamine release into a primate brain. Bonus points if the brain itself is a simulation :)
Well, not a conspiracy exactly, but I seriously doubt that someone paying $2000 for a puppy would refuse to pay $100 for all the necessary shots and an international veterinarian pet passport.
Why are they going abroad in the first place? Because the same puppy goes for $20000 in the US. $3000 (with vaccines and round trip flight) is still less than $20000.
This is not in any way theoretical by the way. People do this. Most will still go to the vet and comply with all the regulations once in the US. They are just looking to save a few bucks.
And the chicken tax is about chickens. Cute velociraptors that cluck and lay eggs. Even though it is actually about installing fake seats in trucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
And condescension is about pretending the other person is dumb and explaining to them that the sky is blue and water is wet.
And American superiority is about somehow assuming that people in other countries don't know how to vaccinate against rabies.
Not sure why the downvotes. Revolutionaries actually have a terrible track record at creating democratic governments. Russia got Communism at the beginning of the 20th century and an oligarchy at the end of it. More recently Egypt got religious fundamentalists. Revolutionaries having legitimate reasons to protest isn't a guarantee of a good outcome.
So, hypothetically, let's say Canada decided to elect a Communist government tomorrow. Do you honestly think the USA would let Canadians decide their fate?
However, the other take on this is that half the country is unhappy enough that it culminated in storming the Capitol. Sure, they may not look very presentable or act very civilized. But they have numbers, power, and anger. Sweeping this fact under the rug is not going to help.
This is what I don't get about these discussions. Any time someone says "the liberals are not interested in uniting the country" someone comes back with "but these people are rednecks and they are bad!" They are still part of the same country (for now) and if it is to stay a country the leadership is going to have to figure out how to talk to them. Because the process by which these people become not part of the same country anymore is called civil war.
The comment above really isn't me. Or rather, it is clearly me (since I posted it), but I don't want it to be.
Where I disagree with you is the implication that undesirable people bring bad behavior with them and pollute this site. I think it's the opposite: something about this site brings out the worst in otherwise reasonable people. Or maybe it's all social media.
In any case, the negative effects clearly outweigh the benefits from participation. This will be the last comment from this account; I'll send a request for deletion. Thank you for accidentally curing my HN addiction! I'll be mindful of the door on my way out :)