4 ms·

This article is complete garbage filled with rhetorical hyperbole and either deliberate misinterpretations or was just written by someone so blinded by dogma th

This article is complete garbage filled with rhetorical hyperbole and either deliberate misinterpretations or was just written by someone so blinded by dogma that they can’t engage ideas in good faith. > The missing link here is how we can use tech to actually take care of people; how to feed them, Food technology is the only reason we can all survive today and why starvation is essentially unheard of among societies with stable enough governments to get aid. >clothe them, Same here. Basic clothing is incredibly cheap and second hand stores are overflowing with clothes. It’s as if this author doesn’t understand that technology extends beyond smartphones. >how to make sure the planet doesn’t reach such high temperatures that we all just melt away. Green energy is one of the huge technology booms we are going through right now. 20 years ago solar and wind were just novelties. They can now generate massive amounts of electricity and we have viable electric cars to run off of the grid. > What is missing here is that San Francisco is already the tech hub of the world and is one of the most unequal places in the universe, both socially and economically. That has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with “fuck you” land owners and cripplingly incompetent legislators so dominated by ideology they spend all of their time fighting over how to best destroy the school system while approving essentially no new housing. Being the “tech hub” has zero to do with where the tech is used. It only takes one ride on the portable toilet and drug den known as BART to know that technology has little place in day to day SF. It doesn’t take breakthroughs in software or AI to stop people from shooting up and making a living stealing. That takes government, which is the one thing technology hasn’t meaningfully changed. >What is missing here is that the technological revolution made it easier to hail an Uber or order food delivery, but did nothing about how those drivers and delivery people are being exploited, and how some live in their cars to sustain a decent wage. Technology is the reason that driver can still eat a meal for less than 1/3rd of an hour’s minimum wage in CA. Technology is the reason they can have a car in the first place. Technology is the reason they can keep in touch with family. That’s just one paragraph and the rest aren’t meaningfully different. This smacks of someone who is so blinded by their political beliefs, they can’t realize all of their complaints are just about the incompetent government around the Bay Area (and wider California to some extent). This article is inadvertently nearly completely agreeing with Marc Andreessen’s manifesto. All of its complaints are about areas that technology hasn’t disrupted yet.

dotandgtfo 3y ago
You seem to think that the article is against technological development. It's not. It's a critique against the libertarian hyper-capitalist model that a16z argues for in his manifesto which arguably brings downsides with it in technological advancement. You seem to be completely missing what the article is arguing. It's not about technology, it's about responsible technological development - where the value from these developments don't end up in the hands of a centralised few at the cost of the many. Which is pretty much what a16z is arguing for.
- fastball 3y ago
  > where the value from these developments don't end up in the hands of a centralised few at the cost of the many Where specifically in the manifesto is this being argued?
  - dotandgtfo 3y ago
    That's the point, it's not. But many people (me included) seem to be under the impression that his views will lead to this end-game. Particularly points like: > We believe in market discipline. The market naturally disciplines – the seller either learns and changes when the buyer fails to show, or exits the market. When market discipline is absent, there is no limit to how crazy things can get. The motto of every monopoly and cartel, every centralized institution not subject to market discipline: “We don’t care, because we don’t have to.” Markets prevent monopolies and cartels. Are pillars of his argument while being complete horseshit (the monopoly part in particular). When he thus argues that regulations and market control are bad he does implicitly argue for this. He isn't arguing for the benefits of the many short term. He's arguing for the benefit of the many through "abundance" at some point in the distant future. But for the moment - he'll get filthy rich off of this flavour of libertarian anarcho-capitalism. And if you're optimistic too maybe you'll get rich in a couple of decades through trickle-down technological development too! wink wink
    - fastball 3y ago
      I agree that point definitely needs fleshing out on his part of he wants it to be taken seriously – I actually made notes while reading this manifesto and that is exactly something I noted myself. I don't agree that his making a potentially invalid point about monopolies means he made this entire manifesto in support of a future that is only good for the billionaire class.

dotandgtfo 3y ago

You seem to think that the article is against technological development. It's not. It's a critique against the libertarian hyper-capitalist model that a16z argues for in his manifesto which arguably brings downsides with it in technological advancement. You seem to be completely missing what the article is arguing. It's not about technology, it's about responsible technological development - where the value from these developments don't end up in the hands of a centralised few at the cost of the many. Which is pretty much what a16z is arguing for.

fastball 3y ago
> where the value from these developments don't end up in the hands of a centralised few at the cost of the many Where specifically in the manifesto is this being argued?
- dotandgtfo 3y ago
  That's the point, it's not. But many people (me included) seem to be under the impression that his views will lead to this end-game. Particularly points like: > We believe in market discipline. The market naturally disciplines – the seller either learns and changes when the buyer fails to show, or exits the market. When market discipline is absent, there is no limit to how crazy things can get. The motto of every monopoly and cartel, every centralized institution not subject to market discipline: “We don’t care, because we don’t have to.” Markets prevent monopolies and cartels. Are pillars of his argument while being complete horseshit (the monopoly part in particular). When he thus argues that regulations and market control are bad he does implicitly argue for this. He isn't arguing for the benefits of the many short term. He's arguing for the benefit of the many through "abundance" at some point in the distant future. But for the moment - he'll get filthy rich off of this flavour of libertarian anarcho-capitalism. And if you're optimistic too maybe you'll get rich in a couple of decades through trickle-down technological development too! wink wink
  - fastball 3y ago
    I agree that point definitely needs fleshing out on his part of he wants it to be taken seriously – I actually made notes while reading this manifesto and that is exactly something I noted myself. I don't agree that his making a potentially invalid point about monopolies means he made this entire manifesto in support of a future that is only good for the billionaire class.