throwawaysea

hace 5 añosdiscuss

They are not just aggregators, but also publishers. They ban/censor certain content, they create algorithms to shape the exposure of information, they control monetization, etc. they have far more influence on “American media” than the six listed here.

throwawaysea

hace 5 añosdiscuss

Reminder that Duolingo’s IPO is very accessible to the public via Robinhood. I am very surprised to see the high valuation for them but it may also be because an uneducated public is trying to get in on something they feel is attractive only because they recognize the name. They may be in for a shock if the stock plummets soon after, especially since there are disincentives for flipping the stock if you bought into the IPO.

throwawaysea

hace 5 añosdiscuss

Thanks for sharing. Some of what that article outlines resonates with me, and reflecting on what I see today, it does seem odd that there aren't as many children out on bicycles. However, I also was able to have the same freedoms of being able to bike around as a child (without parental supervision) in a car-centric setting. That may be because I lived in the suburbs and not some very dense urban center, but my point is it doesn't have to be a binary choice.

As an adult, the type of agency I derive from cars is slightly different. It's about being able to go where I want quickly, without the waiting times of public transit or slow speeds of a bicycle. It's about being able to put that faster travel time to use, by spending the new free time on other activities. For example I can run errands, manage children, meet with a friend, and go to the movies all in one day thanks to the magic of a personal car. And when I go out of town, a car lets me go wherever I want with nearly endless freedom only limited by availability of road infrastructure, while moving the cargo (and people) I want with me at those destinations.

throwawaysea

hace 5 añosdiscuss

This article resonated with me, as someone who felt the fixed tracks of school often held me back and wasted my time with busy work like random craft projects or homework that didn't further my understanding. It's all lost time that I'll never get back, that I could have spent in some alternate way. Hell, even just spending more time with my parents living our life together would have been great. Instead, childhood flies by with much of that time taken by force seemingly, or as the article puts it, with a lack of agency.

This particular line is something I foresee as a future problem:

> I suspect the downplaying of agency in childhood not only creates fewer opportunities for great people, it must also create more marginal people

The less agency, and corresponding personal responsibility is given out, the more likely it is that we will condition future generations to expect things to be provided. After all, they are used to diminished choice and lesser agency, and removing those training wheels can be intimidating. That's not only a risk, but it is also sad, because I think it will have some indirect impact on the creativity of future generations and the intangibles of life.

This article is focused on childhood and schooling. Maybe those are addressable via concepts like school choice (vouchers). But I would argue that problems of agency extend to adulthood as well. Agency is something that needs to be defended through our policies and laws. For example, I foresee future policies that are hostile towards car ownership as eroding agency. I see the practical need for continuous work history (no gaps in employment) as eroding agency. I see the 5-day work week as eroding agency. I'm sure other HN folks will have their own set of examples and desires for greater agency that are very different from mine. I feel like it'll be harder to solve for all of it except to err on the side of individual freedoms when possible.

throwawaysea

hace 6 añosdiscuss

I'm not sure what to make of this article. It had potential but it is intermixed with political ranting that is unproductive. This is disappointing both because politics seems irrelevant and also because the unsubstantive political jabs undermine the credibility of this entire effort by giving away the author's bias.

But leaving the political bits aside, I can't help but think this is an article written for the uninformed. Complexity isn't a bad thing. It is the consequence of specialization and technological advancement. A lot of people bemoan things like complexity in our financial system without understanding why things are the way they are, and without honest consideration that this complexity might actually make sense. That ignorance then causes them to distrust the system or pursue change for change sake, which is what it seems like this article is setting up for.

For me, I can accept complexity in many aspects of my surroundings because people voluntarily built up much of that complexity through mutually-beneficial transactions (that is, free trade, supply-demand, and other market dynamics). It means those complexities have survived Democratic policy-making processes, survived market pressures, survived individuals accepting the beneficial tradeoffs that come with complexity, and so on. Without knowing specifics about some complex system, there is automatically a lot for me to trust and accept as a black box.

The reality is that complexity and lack of understanding is inevitable, and it has also always been the state of things even before human-created complexity. No matter what, an individual will not be omniscient and will need to take some things as they come. Some aspects of life and our environment will remain black boxes. That doesn't mean they are broken or need adjustment to fit our fragile egos. It means we need to accept this situation with humility, and learn more about some area with earnest curiosity rather than viewing it as "too complex".

comments