6 ms·

I disagree with Thiel on almost every page on this document. And I don't know which topic to really critise. Like his view on regulation, which he calls a burde

• whb07 6y ago
  I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). What you’re doing now is imposing the current day to the past, like looking at the current Airbnb and pretending that’s how it was when it first started. What if perhaps today wouldn’t be achieved if there had been so many rules and regulations? So picture the same government from now and place it in say 1870. What would you say the odds are we DONT end up anywhere as advanced as we are today?
  • mjlawson 6y ago
    That's a really unfair comparison. Suggesting that all regulation is akin to your marmalade example is akin to suggesting that we shouldn't enforce any laws because adultery laws are still on the books. There are good laws, and there are bad laws. There is good regulation, and there is bad regulation. The solution is to curate from the good set, and weed out from the bad set - not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    • whb07 6y ago
      The problem is that many rules just get compounded like shitty layers that needs more turds to make up for the past turds. If there was a temporary cleansing or removing of all laws and therefore the good ones would get immediately reinstated then perhaps that’s a better path. Which coincidentally is exactly what Trumps executive order is attempting to do. Remove 2 for every 1 turd that gets added.
      • AlexandrB 6y ago
        I'd love to see the STEM practitioners who post here developing code in a way where you can only add a line if you remove two others (dependencies included). Otherwise, this just sounds like "do as I say, not as I do".
  • _Microft 6y ago
    Why is it not permitted to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits?
    • mjlawson 6y ago
      There's nothing saying you can't. You just can't call it a jam or a marmalade as that has a very specific definition in people's minds. The law itself is detailed here[1]. [1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=150.160 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFR...
      • _Microft 6y ago
        Thanks, I was trying to set them up for a "Chesterton's fence" situation tbh ;)
        • mjlawson 6y ago
          I hadn't come across that before! Very nice.
    • whb07 6y ago
      Because you’d create PB&J addicts! Can you imagine the scoundrels walking around eating delicious toast and jelly?
  • jjj1232 6y ago
    I think if you left it up to the market we would have even more misleading food labels than we do now. It’s already hard enough to determine what is and isn’t healthy at the supermarket, regulation ensures that we at least have the most basic calorie, nutrient and ingridient information. I wouldn’t even disagree that regulation slows down advancement. That is probably the case! But I also know that in the early 1900s you didn’t have the kinds of child labor laws and workplace safety protections in place that we have now. I’d rather a society without child labor even if it runs a little slower and less efficiently.
  • cygx 6y ago
    I’m saddened that you think it’s okay to make it a federal crime to create a jelly/marmalade with more than 4 fruits (seriously). Personally, I prefer that to the days of radioactive toothpaste.
    • whb07 6y ago
      I’d like to be given the option to. Why should you prevent me a free adult from doing it?
      • cygx 6y ago
        Feel free to create or commission all the radioactive toothpaste you want for your personal use. If your jaw starts falling off, as long as you pay for all associated medical costs yourself, that's your business. The game changes if you make it into a product available for and advertised to the general public.
      • mjlawson 6y ago
        I feel like you're not acting in good faith here, but I'll bite. I consider it not worth my time to have to be an expert in all things in order to live my daily life. I consider the few overburdensome regulations that occur within a system designed to both protect my health and preserve my time to be a very worthy tradeoff.
        • whb07 6y ago
          I agree with what you’re saying. But you’re proposing the same argument of “well how do you know the dealer didn’t sprinkle another drug on your weed?” What makes you think that the toothpaste company wants to use expensive radioactive materials on your plain toothpaste and not charge you for it?
          • mercer 6y ago
            > I agree with what you’re saying. But you’re proposing the same argument of “well how do you know the dealer didn’t sprinkle another drug on your weed?” Uh, that's an excellent argument for legalizing and regulating weed. Or am I missing your point? > What makes you think that the toothpaste company wants to use expensive radioactive materials on your plain toothpaste and not charge you for it? I'll sell my radioactive toothpaste at a slight loss, capture the market, and then raise prices? Just off the top of my head. Or sell my radioactive stuff and also invest in companies that treat cancer.
• noetic_techy 6y ago
  >> This is very visible when Thiel dismisses incremental progress with wind turbines and photovoltaic cells. I think you've missed his point which he lays out in the opener. If you've listened to him speak on podcasts about this topic (I recommend episode 1 of The Portal with Eric Weinstein) you will realize that his ENTIRE point is that incremental progress is simply refinement of things we already have since the 60s and for him thats NOT good enough. He isn't looking for incremental refinement at all, he is looking for the equivalent of the emergence of the solar cell or the wind turbine from nothing. Basically the emergence of a totally new way of arranging atoms to bring about big leaps, not small refinements. He isnt looking for the next best rocket, he is looking for the emergence of the warp drive. He always pressed the point that if you take away bites, our tech progress has been largely stagnant since the 60s. I've never heard anyone put it that way and I largely have come to agree. Most of what we have today is just better refinement of tech we had in the 60s. TV's, Refrigerators, Microwaves, Cars, Rockets that land themselves. Even computers. Also, like it or not, capital investment drives innovation, otherwise there is no real incentive. Now I will say one can argue for better models for more longterm investment moon shots that might take decades to achieve, such as say Fusion reactors. ITER is largely stagnant as a multi-government funded 40 billion dollar project and MIT has some incredible designs for fusion reactor prototypes that would put ITER to shame. Problem is they estimate needing 300 million and 10 years to achieve this. Ultimately you need investors to create a company to make this marketable. If Thiel has the money and wants to invest in these sorts of mega leaps ONLY then more power to him and to us all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4
  • rschneid 6y ago
    I think it's a mistake to assume that technology advancements will come in great leaps and bounds since the day of the wright brothers are over... we've been out of our atmosphere and to the bottom of the sea and made nukes++ and transistors at nm levels. Humanity has been so experienced in the domain of physics for so long that there is no low-hanging fruit left within the periodic table. The physical world has limits that our higher order thinking has identified and relentlessly struggled against. This is done every day by independent humans in labs and dreams around the world and seems by it's distributed nature to be incremental. I think Thiel's being quite foolish for lamenting/admonishing a trend that I believe will only getting stronger as the sophistication of collective human knowledge increases...
• fermienrico 6y ago
  There are so many points he makes. Which ones do you agree with? I have a hard time understanding your opposition and painting everything he says as some what illogical, unreasonable, impossible or absurd. The examples you've given, I agree with (and even the most far right people would). But the document is massive and I feel like you're painting a broad stroke with a tiny brush. Peter Thiel is a controversial figure, but your comment to me comes across as rather less objective (besides giving strawman examples) and not substantiated enough for the bold claims you lay down. Happy to listen to you and figure out what points you disagree with, and also understand which ones you agree with. With respect to the regulations - this is a huge topic. You've picked ones that makes sense. But there are regulations like patent laws, and absurd state laws (can't fill gas in Portland yourself) that need to be abolished. From car dealership lobby to a whole bunch of nasty things in Agriculture, there are protective laws that benefit the small proportionally advantaged people and prevent real innovation. There is a lot of gate-keeping in the regulations lobbied to death by companies with big and deep pockets (Philip Morris for e.g. and even companies like Google who spend millions in lobbying). This is not fair with all due respect. I am in the same boat as you in some ways, I think Peter Thiel is a weird guy, but there is no denying - he is smart, tactical and he knows how to play the political chess. There are many progressive ideas in there too that align with Bernie sanders (wages section). Not inclined to you, but I feel like SV folks have tattoed "PROGRESSIVE" in big bold letters and they've stopped thinking for themselves anymore. FYI - I live in SV. Get rid of that label, think from the bottom up - not from left or right.
  • tehabe 6y ago
    I focused mostly on the parts I have some or a lot of knowledge about: energy and tranportation/mobility. I simply can't rule out that in the other fields Thiel might have an opinion I would share if I knew more about those topics. Where I agree with him is the issue of real wages stagnation and even decline in the US and in other countries. Sadly, I don't think we would agree on the cause. I guess, with SV you mean Silicon Valley? I live nowhere near that place. I also don't work in IT. And I hold a degree in economics.
    • fermienrico 6y ago
• cannabis_sam 6y ago
  > At one point Thiel is quoted with "The public transportation systems don’t work." Which is a bold and false statement, because public transportation can work extremely well. I mean, it doesn’t work for him, since he doesn’t need it.. As someone without a car or even a license, who relies on public transport (albeit in Europe), I think this highlights the issues I have with economic inequality... Interests diverging until they become opposed. (Just to be clear, I agree that Peter Thiel’s claims with regards to public transport is false in general)
  • thu2111 6y ago
    A lot of what Thiel writes is from a US centric viewpoint, which is fine, he's an American living in America. And in the biggest US cities public transport doesn't work all that well.
    • cannabis_sam 6y ago
      He’s an extremely rich American that can navigate both government contracts to implement surveillance of people less fortunate than him (palantir) and the justice system to shut down press (gawker). He doesn’t need democracy, he doesn’t care for poorer people’s values, opinions or input, he prefers his version of “freedom” because he can buy whatever he needs. Fuck everyone else, amirite? (/s) Edit: when I was in the US I did use public transport, and it was fine, less convenient than uber, but fine. (This is in the context of cities and suburbs, even in europe people who live in rural areas are obviously less served by public transport). (And yes public transport in San Francisco did kinda suck. But so did old-school taxis)
      • tomhoward 6y ago
        From what I've heard him say, he seems sympathetic to the plight of "ordinary" Americans - i.e., middle/lower-class types who voted for Trump. They're all much less fortunate than him. I fully understand that people will find his endorsement of Trump repugnant, and look at past statements on gender and rumours of his past-stated positions on race, and find him deeply problematic. And some will be skeptical that he cares sufficiently for all those less fortunate. I have no need to argue the toss on those matters. But he does earnestly seem to care about the wellbeing of many less-fortunate Americans, and has spoken often of his wish to see a return to the more optimistic days of the 1960s, where shows like The Jetsons portrayed a vision of the future that ordinary people found inspiring. [1] But even if someone is a completely un-compassionate, self-interested arch-capitalist, it's still in their interests for most people in society to do be doing OK, as it means more people with money to buy products from the companies you invest in, and a more orderly society, which makes it easier to become/remain rich. As for public transport, he was living in San Francisco when he said that. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-taxes https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-ta...