6 ms·

Agreed. This article is pretty clear about its intent: don’t be lulled into a false sense of economic security after the pandemic and build this experience into

Agreed. This article is pretty clear about its intent: don’t be lulled into a false sense of economic security after the pandemic and build this experience into our understanding of our system. The first step of any solution is convincing people there is a problem. Not just the obvious “things are bad,” but an understanding that these issues are systemic in a way that challenges American ideology. These articles frustrate HN because they aren’t pitching some technocratic reformism, but instead are seeding ideas about the structure of our society that need to be absorbed before we can hope to change it. I’m honestly surprised to see this pop up at all here, HN isn’t a crowd that is demographically primed to challenge the assumptions of capitalisms.

glogla 5y ago
Based on what gets up and downvoted, most of people on HN are ancap or fascists. I guess it makes sense - startups are gold rush, VC's are the ones giving away shovels for portion of gold should there be any, and founders are people who either found gold or believe they will. I wonder if most of people have political outlook like this. If they do, it is both sad and comforting, because then the humanity is doomed to kill ourselves via climate change, but we would deserve it.
- qsort 5y ago
  I really hope dang sees this. It's a nice candidate for inclusion in his list of [f"most people on HN are {x}" for x in ridiculous_ideologies]
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Upvote and downvote do not work that way at HN and should not be interpreted that way without analysis. Here it is not about how you feel: it is about whether you make sense. Experience mostly reflects the principle (some noise must be expected).
  - dang 5y ago
    I think you may have a mistaken impression of how downvotes work on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
  - moistly 5y ago
    Your claim is fallacious. It is not rooted in any formal study of HN voters or voting outcomes. It is just a story HN members tell themselves to feel special. Reality is, HN is like every other social media platform, and feelings deeply influence voting around here. IMO it is obvious.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      There is little need for formal studies. HN is very surely different from «other social media platform[s]»: you must have never been on Reddit or YT, to provide examples of diametrically opposite places. A quick look at information density and "where the uttering came from" (say, above the neck, below the hips or other guts) should clearly show a massive, radical difference. That feelings influence voting, in terms of "hear, hear" or "thank you", is not undesirable: it is still agreement on reasoning. Expression of disagreement through downvoting is limited already through a technical limitation, which also contributes to indicate the form. Some foolish snipers (hitting without leaving any justification) are around: bad apples are not curbed, also because it apparently is not a mission for HN to create an optimal system of moderation and debate. In fact, there are several shortcomings to adopt HN as a model for moderation and debate - it was evidently not the objective. But civilization wise, there is no comparison with many other places. By the way: > a story HN members tell themselves to feel special Please. Accusing others to have unclean grounds in their evaluations, gratuitously? And, when one is "special", it is not out of some free membership that confirmation comes.
      - moistly 5y ago
        Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I guess. Feel special!
        mdp2021 5y ago
        Our individual CVs, skills and perks are none of your business. In fact, back to the point, HN is very surely different from other places because this comment of yours has no whatsoever place here. That you afford to utter it confirms your misunderstanding of the place: you must have not read the guidelines properly, nor have verified them vis-a-vis the actual threads.
- lliamander 5y ago
  There are probably quite a few ancaps, and I've seen a fair few communists, but I have yet to see a genuine fascist. That suggests to me your using the term more as a slur than as a word that actually means something.
- dang 5y ago
  > most of people on HN are ancap or fascists This sort of generalization is notoriously unreliable and subject to cognitive bias. People are far more likely to notice what they dislike, and to weight it more heavily. This produces false feelings of generality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22false%20feelings%20of%20generality%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... That's why users with opposing views to yours make the opposite generalization [1]. It's not that HN is any different—they simply dislike different things. This is one of the most reliable phenomena I've seen on HN. It's so reliable that one can accurately predict people's politics (or other preferences) simply by flipping a bit on the generalizations they make. [1] A few are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26368875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26368875. Edit: it looks like we've had this conversation before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20343865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20343865 (July 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14200623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14200623 (April 2017)
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Since we are here, Daniel, and also with reference to something I wrote nearby: I think the guidelines should be augmented, in terms of "downvoting without justification should be frowned upon". Otherwise, some would be tempted to just downvote something because they "feel differently": posts are not polls ("how many like strawberry, how many dislike it"). In general, downvoting should be accompanied by posting the underlying reasons - it should take posts evidently inconsistent with the purpose (cheap cheer, cheap joke etc.) to be exceptionally downvoted silently. I understand HN is pretty conservative in terms of structure and rules, but I believe this should be a general norm that would be consistent with the spirit of the site (intellectuality and promotion of meaningful posts), and beneficial if made explicit.
    - dang 5y ago
      It is a common suggestion but I think it would be a mistake to require people to post reasons for their downvotes. It would produce a ton of noise (because people would just make shit up) and dramatically increase meta-bickering about downvotes, which we already have too much of. Edit: here's a partial list of past explanations about this, in case anyone is interested in seeing how it has come up over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/downvote-reasons https://news.ycombinator.com/downvote-reasons
nightski 5y ago
This doesn't challenge assumptions of capitalism in any meaningful way. In fact my impression reading it was how the author seemed to fundamentally misunderstand finance. I'd love to hear thoughts on how it would be done differently, but he doesn't get that far and rather just makes shallow statements.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > author seemed to fundamentally misunderstand finance. Without telling us in why you think that, your comment just comes across as throwing insults around. Such a serious accusation requires evidence.
  - nightski 5y ago
    It wasn't an insult, it was a critique. Any economy built on promises that can be thrown out at will is just a house of cards. Where do you even start with that? That's just one thing, the article is filled with half thought out premises that when taken to their conclusion fall apart. In reality it is the author making serious accusations that require evidence, not my critique.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      I can't help you if you don't know where to start to support your own claims but rhetorical hand-waving probably isn't it. That you disagree with Graeber isn't really indicative that he fundamentally misunderstand finance though. He's kind of a well-received[1] expert on the subject, even according to the Financial Times[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years#Critical_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years#Cri... 2. https://www.ft.com/content/04e44606-d9a0-11e0-b16a-00144feabdc0#axzz1daX4Ostx https://www.ft.com/content/04e44606-d9a0-11e0-b16a-00144feab...
      - nightski 5y ago
        My point was is the author didn't even provide any detail on where his claims (not mine) would lead or how they would work. Why does the burden keep being put on me to disprove his claims instead of him being required to prove that they do work?

glogla 5y ago

Based on what gets up and downvoted, most of people on HN are ancap or fascists. I guess it makes sense - startups are gold rush, VC's are the ones giving away shovels for portion of gold should there be any, and founders are people who either found gold or believe they will. I wonder if most of people have political outlook like this. If they do, it is both sad and comforting, because then the humanity is doomed to kill ourselves via climate change, but we would deserve it.

qsort 5y ago
I really hope dang sees this. It's a nice candidate for inclusion in his list of [f"most people on HN are {x}" for x in ridiculous_ideologies]
mdp2021 5y ago
Upvote and downvote do not work that way at HN and should not be interpreted that way without analysis. Here it is not about how you feel: it is about whether you make sense. Experience mostly reflects the principle (some noise must be expected).
- dang 5y ago
  I think you may have a mistaken impression of how downvotes work on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
- moistly 5y ago
  Your claim is fallacious. It is not rooted in any formal study of HN voters or voting outcomes. It is just a story HN members tell themselves to feel special. Reality is, HN is like every other social media platform, and feelings deeply influence voting around here. IMO it is obvious.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    There is little need for formal studies. HN is very surely different from «other social media platform[s]»: you must have never been on Reddit or YT, to provide examples of diametrically opposite places. A quick look at information density and "where the uttering came from" (say, above the neck, below the hips or other guts) should clearly show a massive, radical difference. That feelings influence voting, in terms of "hear, hear" or "thank you", is not undesirable: it is still agreement on reasoning. Expression of disagreement through downvoting is limited already through a technical limitation, which also contributes to indicate the form. Some foolish snipers (hitting without leaving any justification) are around: bad apples are not curbed, also because it apparently is not a mission for HN to create an optimal system of moderation and debate. In fact, there are several shortcomings to adopt HN as a model for moderation and debate - it was evidently not the objective. But civilization wise, there is no comparison with many other places. By the way: > a story HN members tell themselves to feel special Please. Accusing others to have unclean grounds in their evaluations, gratuitously? And, when one is "special", it is not out of some free membership that confirmation comes.
    - moistly 5y ago
      Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I guess. Feel special!
      - mdp2021 5y ago
        Our individual CVs, skills and perks are none of your business. In fact, back to the point, HN is very surely different from other places because this comment of yours has no whatsoever place here. That you afford to utter it confirms your misunderstanding of the place: you must have not read the guidelines properly, nor have verified them vis-a-vis the actual threads.
lliamander 5y ago
There are probably quite a few ancaps, and I've seen a fair few communists, but I have yet to see a genuine fascist. That suggests to me your using the term more as a slur than as a word that actually means something.
dang 5y ago
> most of people on HN are ancap or fascists This sort of generalization is notoriously unreliable and subject to cognitive bias. People are far more likely to notice what they dislike, and to weight it more heavily. This produces false feelings of generality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22false%20feelings%20of%20generality%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... That's why users with opposing views to yours make the opposite generalization [1]. It's not that HN is any different—they simply dislike different things. This is one of the most reliable phenomena I've seen on HN. It's so reliable that one can accurately predict people's politics (or other preferences) simply by flipping a bit on the generalizations they make. [1] A few are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26368875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26368875. Edit: it looks like we've had this conversation before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20343865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20343865 (July 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14200623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14200623 (April 2017)
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Since we are here, Daniel, and also with reference to something I wrote nearby: I think the guidelines should be augmented, in terms of "downvoting without justification should be frowned upon". Otherwise, some would be tempted to just downvote something because they "feel differently": posts are not polls ("how many like strawberry, how many dislike it"). In general, downvoting should be accompanied by posting the underlying reasons - it should take posts evidently inconsistent with the purpose (cheap cheer, cheap joke etc.) to be exceptionally downvoted silently. I understand HN is pretty conservative in terms of structure and rules, but I believe this should be a general norm that would be consistent with the spirit of the site (intellectuality and promotion of meaningful posts), and beneficial if made explicit.
  - dang 5y ago
    It is a common suggestion but I think it would be a mistake to require people to post reasons for their downvotes. It would produce a ton of noise (because people would just make shit up) and dramatically increase meta-bickering about downvotes, which we already have too much of. Edit: here's a partial list of past explanations about this, in case anyone is interested in seeing how it has come up over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/downvote-reasons https://news.ycombinator.com/downvote-reasons

nightski 5y ago

This doesn't challenge assumptions of capitalism in any meaningful way. In fact my impression reading it was how the author seemed to fundamentally misunderstand finance. I'd love to hear thoughts on how it would be done differently, but he doesn't get that far and rather just makes shallow statements.

guerrilla 5y ago
> author seemed to fundamentally misunderstand finance. Without telling us in why you think that, your comment just comes across as throwing insults around. Such a serious accusation requires evidence.
- nightski 5y ago
  It wasn't an insult, it was a critique. Any economy built on promises that can be thrown out at will is just a house of cards. Where do you even start with that? That's just one thing, the article is filled with half thought out premises that when taken to their conclusion fall apart. In reality it is the author making serious accusations that require evidence, not my critique.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    I can't help you if you don't know where to start to support your own claims but rhetorical hand-waving probably isn't it. That you disagree with Graeber isn't really indicative that he fundamentally misunderstand finance though. He's kind of a well-received[1] expert on the subject, even according to the Financial Times[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years#Critical_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years#Cri... 2. https://www.ft.com/content/04e44606-d9a0-11e0-b16a-00144feabdc0#axzz1daX4Ostx https://www.ft.com/content/04e44606-d9a0-11e0-b16a-00144feab...
    - nightski 5y ago
      My point was is the author didn't even provide any detail on where his claims (not mine) would lead or how they would work. Why does the burden keep being put on me to disprove his claims instead of him being required to prove that they do work?