3 ms·

Yeah, I just axiomatically disagree with this sort of control-obsessed, zero-sum thinking. Good ideas have always had to compete with other new ideas in additio

Yeah, I just axiomatically disagree with this sort of control-obsessed, zero-sum thinking. Good ideas have always had to compete with other new ideas in addition with incumbent old ones. There is always an organizational challenge in addition to the technical one. If whatever you want to happen is threatened by Gemini, it's not good enough. If you want to wait until everyone else stops trying new ideas, please say hello to the heat death of the universe for me.

cxr 5y ago
I don't know what you mean by "control-obsessed", and I'm not a zero-summer generally, but zero-summability is relevant to what's going on with Gemini. A person who spends 250 man-hours working on Gemini is not going to get that back. Likewise, a project that would have benefited from that person's enthusiasm had Gemini not existed is not going to. > If whatever you want to happen is threatened by Gemini I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists. The person who would otherwise catalyze B's existence and success doesn't, because they think that A is sufficient and/or anyone they might talk to about B would just respond, "I dunno; isn't that what A is for?" You can see this with Mozilla, for example. (As a former Mozillian, that's what I had in mind at the time I wrote the linked blog post.) I have become especially sensitive to this after my experience between 2006–2013 and seeing the contrast of that time period vs Mozilla's role over the last 10 years—which is basically a black hole that keeps people from effectively organizing anything that resembles the early days of Firefox development. I recognized something similar after moving to Austin in 2014 and signing up for lots of volunteer events that were by-and-large just organized to be ways for affluent young professionals to feel like they're doing good by burning their attention surpluses, whether or not any of those events were actually a worthwhile use of those resources. See also: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF/purchase-fuzzies-and-utilons-separately https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF/purchase-f... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10029811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10029811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7302645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7302645 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/ https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-... > If you want to wait until everyone else stops trying new ideas That's the opposite of my position—which is that Gemini is sucking the air out of the room.
- akkartik 5y ago
  > I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists. This risk is omnipresent in the universe. We never know what possible futures we cut off when we make a fork in the road. You don't ever step into the same river twice. However, this risk also applies to the projects you like. If we all worried about this we'd not do anything. Rhetoric like "Gemini sucking the air out of the room," "person who spends 250 hours working on Gemini," "it's like voluntourism," -- I could just as well replace Gemini with triplescripts throughout your comments.
  - cxr 5y ago
    No, you could only do that if the basis of my comment were about generic, FOMO-driven hand-wringing, where A is unbound, so substitute any A and the criticism remains true. That's not what we're talking about. The criticism involves the observation that Gemini, specifically, is bad.
    - akkartik 5y ago
      If Gemini specifically is bad, you should be able to argue that without making these other arguments that apply to any new project. Convince people they shouldn't care about it. So far I haven't found that side compelling. If you concentrate your energies there, I might.
      - cxr 5y ago
        They can't be applied to any new project. I don't know why you're ignoring this, even with the clarification using the well-understood concept of free vs bound variables. "These other arguments" are a direct response to the question you posed <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068014>. My position is something that I know you already agree with. You can't write, "Surely anything Gemini does or doesn't isn't as damaging as status quo" and think that my argument is unsound—because it's the same concept. > If you concentrate your energies there The last thing that we need is _more_ energy being lost to the Gemini sinkhole. That's the whole point!

cxr 5y ago

I don't know what you mean by "control-obsessed", and I'm not a zero-summer generally, but zero-summability is relevant to what's going on with Gemini. A person who spends 250 man-hours working on Gemini is not going to get that back. Likewise, a project that would have benefited from that person's enthusiasm had Gemini not existed is not going to. > If whatever you want to happen is threatened by Gemini I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists. The person who would otherwise catalyze B's existence and success doesn't, because they think that A is sufficient and/or anyone they might talk to about B would just respond, "I dunno; isn't that what A is for?" You can see this with Mozilla, for example. (As a former Mozillian, that's what I had in mind at the time I wrote the linked blog post.) I have become especially sensitive to this after my experience between 2006–2013 and seeing the contrast of that time period vs Mozilla's role over the last 10 years—which is basically a black hole that keeps people from effectively organizing anything that resembles the early days of Firefox development. I recognized something similar after moving to Austin in 2014 and signing up for lots of volunteer events that were by-and-large just organized to be ways for affluent young professionals to feel like they're doing good by burning their attention surpluses, whether or not any of those events were actually a worthwhile use of those resources. See also: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF/purchase-fuzzies-and-utilons-separately https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF/purchase-f... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10029811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10029811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7302645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7302645 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/ https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-... > If you want to wait until everyone else stops trying new ideas That's the opposite of my position—which is that Gemini is sucking the air out of the room.

akkartik 5y ago
> I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists. This risk is omnipresent in the universe. We never know what possible futures we cut off when we make a fork in the road. You don't ever step into the same river twice. However, this risk also applies to the projects you like. If we all worried about this we'd not do anything. Rhetoric like "Gemini sucking the air out of the room," "person who spends 250 hours working on Gemini," "it's like voluntourism," -- I could just as well replace Gemini with triplescripts throughout your comments.
- cxr 5y ago
  No, you could only do that if the basis of my comment were about generic, FOMO-driven hand-wringing, where A is unbound, so substitute any A and the criticism remains true. That's not what we're talking about. The criticism involves the observation that Gemini, specifically, is bad.
  - akkartik 5y ago
    If Gemini specifically is bad, you should be able to argue that without making these other arguments that apply to any new project. Convince people they shouldn't care about it. So far I haven't found that side compelling. If you concentrate your energies there, I might.
    - cxr 5y ago
      They can't be applied to any new project. I don't know why you're ignoring this, even with the clarification using the well-understood concept of free vs bound variables. "These other arguments" are a direct response to the question you posed <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068014>. My position is something that I know you already agree with. You can't write, "Surely anything Gemini does or doesn't isn't as damaging as status quo" and think that my argument is unsound—because it's the same concept. > If you concentrate your energies there The last thing that we need is _more_ energy being lost to the Gemini sinkhole. That's the whole point!