4 ms·

I think it is really funny when people criticize something that is altruistic, but not altruistic enough for your tastes. Are you going around saying "why don'

by stale2002 8y ago

I think it is really funny when people criticize something that is altruistic, but not altruistic enough for your tastes. Are you going around saying "why don't these rich people stop buying yachts!". At least this guy did something that wasn't entirely selfish. Which is more than can be said about most people in the world.

vladislav 8y ago
I actually have nothing against frivolous spending, since buying a yacht doesn't subtract from the high end talent pool. If you're going to put up a few mil to solve a math problem, why not something like P v. NP, or the Riemann hypothesis, or countless applied math problems. Instead it was spent on some kind of spectacle of arbitrary mental effort.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  Come on. There already is a $1 million bounty on P vs NP.
  - quickthrower2 8y ago
    Crypto people don't want P=NP though.
- TFYS 8y ago
  Buying a yacht does subtract from a high end talent pool. It requires talented people to design and build a yacht.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - vladislav 8y ago
    High end is a very relative term. No doubt it requires talented people, but you don't see Feynman working on it.
- wastedhours 8y ago
  > since buying a yacht doesn't subtract from the high end talent pool What about all of those highly skilled technicians and engineers who dedicate years to building said yacht who aren't building rockets or faster trains for us all or designing better schools? Etc, etc... Any argument rooted in "these other people should do X instead of Y because I think X is more important and want to see them do it" fails from inherent selfishness. Whether X is indeed better than Y is moot.
  - vladislav 8y ago
    "Whether X is indeed better than Y is moot." Actually it's probably one of the most worthwhile questions, philosophically and practically. If this question doesn't get properly considered, we end up with blind glorification of activities whose main selling point is revenue generation and shitty feedback loops in society over generations.
    - wastedhours 8y ago
      > blind glorification of activities whose main selling point is revenue generation Not inherently. Only in the cases where it's a true choice between something revenue generating, and something people are doing for social good. Your perception of social good (people dedicating their time to intellectual puzzles you deem worthy vs people wasting their time on these meaningless displays of skill), is different to someone else's. My point was perhaps too broad - but deigning to tell someone their pursuit isn't as worthy as one you think they should be pursuing is, frankly, pointless.
      - vladislav 8y ago
        "My point was perhaps too broad - but deigning to tell someone their pursuit isn't as worthy as one you think they should be pursuing is, frankly, pointless." That seems to assume immutable human values, and/or a postmodern view of the world. Promoting thoughtfulness about the meaning of human activity seems pretty valuable, regardless of the conclusion.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Should I assume you're also opposed to, say, logic puzzles, or chess?

vladislav 8y ago

I actually have nothing against frivolous spending, since buying a yacht doesn't subtract from the high end talent pool. If you're going to put up a few mil to solve a math problem, why not something like P v. NP, or the Riemann hypothesis, or countless applied math problems. Instead it was spent on some kind of spectacle of arbitrary mental effort.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
Come on. There already is a $1 million bounty on P vs NP.
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  Crypto people don't want P=NP though.
TFYS 8y ago
Buying a yacht does subtract from a high end talent pool. It requires talented people to design and build a yacht.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- vladislav 8y ago
  High end is a very relative term. No doubt it requires talented people, but you don't see Feynman working on it.
wastedhours 8y ago
> since buying a yacht doesn't subtract from the high end talent pool What about all of those highly skilled technicians and engineers who dedicate years to building said yacht who aren't building rockets or faster trains for us all or designing better schools? Etc, etc... Any argument rooted in "these other people should do X instead of Y because I think X is more important and want to see them do it" fails from inherent selfishness. Whether X is indeed better than Y is moot.
- vladislav 8y ago
  "Whether X is indeed better than Y is moot." Actually it's probably one of the most worthwhile questions, philosophically and practically. If this question doesn't get properly considered, we end up with blind glorification of activities whose main selling point is revenue generation and shitty feedback loops in society over generations.
  - wastedhours 8y ago
    > blind glorification of activities whose main selling point is revenue generation Not inherently. Only in the cases where it's a true choice between something revenue generating, and something people are doing for social good. Your perception of social good (people dedicating their time to intellectual puzzles you deem worthy vs people wasting their time on these meaningless displays of skill), is different to someone else's. My point was perhaps too broad - but deigning to tell someone their pursuit isn't as worthy as one you think they should be pursuing is, frankly, pointless.
    - vladislav 8y ago
      "My point was perhaps too broad - but deigning to tell someone their pursuit isn't as worthy as one you think they should be pursuing is, frankly, pointless." That seems to assume immutable human values, and/or a postmodern view of the world. Promoting thoughtfulness about the meaning of human activity seems pretty valuable, regardless of the conclusion.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Should I assume you're also opposed to, say, logic puzzles, or chess?