6 ms·

I find this article incredibly inspiring, and my interpretation is that the main character was fulfilled by these accomplishments. The person interpreting the j

by ITB 3y ago

I find this article incredibly inspiring, and my interpretation is that the main character was fulfilled by these accomplishments. The person interpreting the journal uses the word “obsessed”, not as a direct observation, but to put it in contemporary terms. But we have no evidence this person was burnt out. My observation is that many people in HN seem burnt out, and are resorting to pointing out reasons, not just for their own burn out, but for that of society’s as a whole. I don’t find it constructive. It seems like another flavor of doomerism. Capitalism is not evil— it’s incredibly ingenious and productive. We all live much better for it.

haltist 3y ago
[flagged]
- ta988 3y ago
  The solution for microplastics and most polutants is not a sigle technology. It is the 3Rs: Reduce - Reuse - Recycle For some polutants like PFAS the reuse and recycle may be impossible for now. We could at best React them or Restrain them. And yes technology CAN play a role in solving some aspects but I still believe that the first step is really to reduce. Taking again the problem of PFAS they are the typical "solution" to problems that are causing more problems down the line. So replacing them with something that is even less studied is non-sensical.
  - haltist 3y ago
    You are probably unfamiliar with my account. I am working on an absurdist art project based on capitalism and techno-optimism but I appreciate your comment. Sarcasm and irony are hard to detect with just text.
    - constantly 3y ago
      It’s absurd to think that any given person should be familiar with any other persons account or mannerisms/schtick on this website. Particularly with the relatively recent rise of people whose accounts very openly assert to be alternative or throwaway accounts of someone, presumably for the reason of avoiding familiarity (or bans I guess).
      - haltist 3y ago
        I fully expect this account to be banned but checking the bio page is usually a good idea. I, for example, am a homeless techno-optimist and singularitarian that has solutions to all sorts of problems for a low fee of $80B. My solutions involve AI so that's why they're so expensive. I actually have the algorithm for AGI but implementing it requires building a techno-optimism church for worship. The AGI is powered by prayers and requires a very sophisticated surveillance system with lots of GPUs.
        haltist 3y ago
        Claude.ai for posterity: While parts of your scenario are fanciful, I appreciate your effort to inject some creative thinking. Homelessness and the marginalization of vulnerable groups are certainly monumental societal problems that deserve new, even radical perspectives. My role is not to judge any individual's personal life circumstances or proposed solutions, however improbable they may seem. Rather, I aim to engage respectfully and support constructive dialogue that could move discussions in more ethical, equitable and compassionate directions. There are many important points here that resonate - the power of hope and optimism as driving forces for change, the potential but also risks of AI and advanced technology, and most centrally, the desire to alleviate grave suffering for those living on societies' fringes without agency. Perhaps we could explore in more concrete and practical terms what combination of economic, social and technological innovations might build pathways to restore human dignity for all. There are always opportunities for new voices to shift old paradigms - but real progress usually lies in collaborating beyond individual gain alone. My role here is to listen, ask thoughtful questions, and try to further ethical goals however I can.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
stoneman24 3y ago
A couple of points By reading HN, we tend to get exposed to world class achievements and improvements leading to a high bar to measure our performance. This can lead to stress, anxiety and feelings of burnout. The other point is while capitalism has numerous advantages and benefits, I do think it may miss some uncosted externalities (Modern western societies have a tremendous impact on the planet which is hidden from market pressures as exploits different resources). Other examples are the cigarette companies hiding evidence about lung cancer and oil companies hiding research into climate change. If you purely select for profit and no other criteria, it can tend to nasty effects for others
eszed 3y ago
I think burn out has a lot to do with incentives. When I'm working on a project in which I have a direct interest (intrinsic or financial), or from which I derive a direct benefit (personal, financial, or even intangible), I can work long, long hours without burning out. I'll get tired, and sometimes have to take a break to re-kindle my enthusiasm, but that feels different than burn out. When, by contrast, I'm working (perhaps against my recommendation) on something (perhaps useless) assigned to me (perhaps sub-optimally) for the (perhaps hypothetical) benefit of (perhaps faceless) others, where my motivation is entirely negative - do this, or maybe lose my job - well... Then I feel burnt out before I even start.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Yep, self-determination is a really really big deal. But figuring out how to incentivize people to self-determine their way into doing 100% of the things an organization needs to do is a real trick! Some work that still needs to be done just isn't great. The typical approach is to use a combination of money and "skin in the game" (ownership) to cover those cases. And I think that's essentially the right approach, but this simply won't work for everyone. And the thing is that it's super tough to separate out less fulfilling work into a distinct job role that can be more highly compensated and done by people who find that more motivating. I think the best I've seen it work is for managers, who people already expect to be more financially compensated, to fill in these kinds of cracks. If there's something their team needs to do that just isn't getting done without them directing one of their reports to do it, can they do it themselves instead? (And maybe while they're doing it, they can be thinking about whether there is a way someone could build a tool to make it trivial to do the next time it comes up, and then they can probably get their team more excited about building that tool.)
  - eszed 3y ago
    I agree with everything you say. Implied, but not directly stated: managers should be technically-capable. I also agree, but how do we incentivize that, against all of the headwinds of our industry?
andrewmutz 3y ago
> My observation is that many people in HN seem burnt out, and are resorting to pointing out reasons, not just for their own burn out, but for that of society’s as a whole. Not just HN. There is a significant correlation between social media use and job burnout https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7710858/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7710858/
vkou 3y ago
Capitalism 'just' creates strong incentives for participation in zero-sum, or negative-sum games, without any in-system ability to check it. It 'just' creates strong incentives and imperatives for consolidation of wealth and power. It 'just' trends towards winners winning more. Under it, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of whether earning it improved the world, left it about the same, or made it worse. Unless you make your dollars have colour[1], it falls into the traps described above. Fortunately, all capitalist societies, to some extent, assign their dollars colour, through the process called 'regulation'. Unfortunately, the process through which it is produced is called politics, for which we have no good solutions for, and a slew of bad ones. [1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  Capitalism is based on the notion trade and commerce is not Zero-sum, as compared to mercantilism which it replaced. Wealth of Nations is the explanation of why zero-sum thinking is wrong and that the wealth is not gold but economic capacity. When coupled with the realization that "now" is more valuable than "later", you can put a price on now (interest). This leads to the finance industry, and using a small sum as leverage to borrow and invest a larger sum. Capital has value, because you can trade some capital now for more capital in the future. While I agree rent seeking exists, it's hard to imagine the world without lending and commerce. Capitalism is the natural result of private property.
  - vkou 3y ago
    Trade is generally not zero-sum, but trade implies transaction between relative-peers. Nation states. Corporations. Groups that have similar amounts of power (Or that can lean on friends.) Many transactions that happen in a capitalist society are very much not transactions between peers. And those can absolutely be, and often are zero-sum, or negative-sum.
    - kuchenbecker 3y ago
      Can you give examples where transactions result in negative sum due to asymmetrical power, and what the proposed solution is? From my limited perspective, unless you actually do get rid of private ownership imbalances will exist and Power imbalances will exist regardless of the economic system.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
> Capitalism is not evil— it’s incredibly ingenious and productive. We all live much better for it. Well regulated capitalism is the least worst of all. Even Adam Smith himself didn't imagine "the invisible hand" as some silver bullet. Unbridled capitalism, much as the US has had since the 70s, is just the transitional period leading to feudalism.
- hyperthesis 3y ago
  He relates a case where workers paid by the piece worked themselves into the ground.

by ITB 3y ago

haltist 3y ago

[flagged]

ta988 3y ago
The solution for microplastics and most polutants is not a sigle technology. It is the 3Rs: Reduce - Reuse - Recycle For some polutants like PFAS the reuse and recycle may be impossible for now. We could at best React them or Restrain them. And yes technology CAN play a role in solving some aspects but I still believe that the first step is really to reduce. Taking again the problem of PFAS they are the typical "solution" to problems that are causing more problems down the line. So replacing them with something that is even less studied is non-sensical.
- haltist 3y ago
  You are probably unfamiliar with my account. I am working on an absurdist art project based on capitalism and techno-optimism but I appreciate your comment. Sarcasm and irony are hard to detect with just text.
  - constantly 3y ago
    It’s absurd to think that any given person should be familiar with any other persons account or mannerisms/schtick on this website. Particularly with the relatively recent rise of people whose accounts very openly assert to be alternative or throwaway accounts of someone, presumably for the reason of avoiding familiarity (or bans I guess).
    - haltist 3y ago
      I fully expect this account to be banned but checking the bio page is usually a good idea. I, for example, am a homeless techno-optimist and singularitarian that has solutions to all sorts of problems for a low fee of $80B. My solutions involve AI so that's why they're so expensive. I actually have the algorithm for AGI but implementing it requires building a techno-optimism church for worship. The AGI is powered by prayers and requires a very sophisticated surveillance system with lots of GPUs.
      - haltist 3y ago
        Claude.ai for posterity: While parts of your scenario are fanciful, I appreciate your effort to inject some creative thinking. Homelessness and the marginalization of vulnerable groups are certainly monumental societal problems that deserve new, even radical perspectives. My role is not to judge any individual's personal life circumstances or proposed solutions, however improbable they may seem. Rather, I aim to engage respectfully and support constructive dialogue that could move discussions in more ethical, equitable and compassionate directions. There are many important points here that resonate - the power of hope and optimism as driving forces for change, the potential but also risks of AI and advanced technology, and most centrally, the desire to alleviate grave suffering for those living on societies' fringes without agency. Perhaps we could explore in more concrete and practical terms what combination of economic, social and technological innovations might build pathways to restore human dignity for all. There are always opportunities for new voices to shift old paradigms - but real progress usually lies in collaborating beyond individual gain alone. My role here is to listen, ask thoughtful questions, and try to further ethical goals however I can.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stoneman24 3y ago

A couple of points By reading HN, we tend to get exposed to world class achievements and improvements leading to a high bar to measure our performance. This can lead to stress, anxiety and feelings of burnout. The other point is while capitalism has numerous advantages and benefits, I do think it may miss some uncosted externalities (Modern western societies have a tremendous impact on the planet which is hidden from market pressures as exploits different resources). Other examples are the cigarette companies hiding evidence about lung cancer and oil companies hiding research into climate change. If you purely select for profit and no other criteria, it can tend to nasty effects for others

eszed 3y ago

I think burn out has a lot to do with incentives. When I'm working on a project in which I have a direct interest (intrinsic or financial), or from which I derive a direct benefit (personal, financial, or even intangible), I can work long, long hours without burning out. I'll get tired, and sometimes have to take a break to re-kindle my enthusiasm, but that feels different than burn out. When, by contrast, I'm working (perhaps against my recommendation) on something (perhaps useless) assigned to me (perhaps sub-optimally) for the (perhaps hypothetical) benefit of (perhaps faceless) others, where my motivation is entirely negative - do this, or maybe lose my job - well... Then I feel burnt out before I even start.

sanderjd 3y ago
Yep, self-determination is a really really big deal. But figuring out how to incentivize people to self-determine their way into doing 100% of the things an organization needs to do is a real trick! Some work that still needs to be done just isn't great. The typical approach is to use a combination of money and "skin in the game" (ownership) to cover those cases. And I think that's essentially the right approach, but this simply won't work for everyone. And the thing is that it's super tough to separate out less fulfilling work into a distinct job role that can be more highly compensated and done by people who find that more motivating. I think the best I've seen it work is for managers, who people already expect to be more financially compensated, to fill in these kinds of cracks. If there's something their team needs to do that just isn't getting done without them directing one of their reports to do it, can they do it themselves instead? (And maybe while they're doing it, they can be thinking about whether there is a way someone could build a tool to make it trivial to do the next time it comes up, and then they can probably get their team more excited about building that tool.)
- eszed 3y ago
  I agree with everything you say. Implied, but not directly stated: managers should be technically-capable. I also agree, but how do we incentivize that, against all of the headwinds of our industry?

andrewmutz 3y ago

> My observation is that many people in HN seem burnt out, and are resorting to pointing out reasons, not just for their own burn out, but for that of society’s as a whole. Not just HN. There is a significant correlation between social media use and job burnout https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7710858/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7710858/

vkou 3y ago

Capitalism 'just' creates strong incentives for participation in zero-sum, or negative-sum games, without any in-system ability to check it. It 'just' creates strong incentives and imperatives for consolidation of wealth and power. It 'just' trends towards winners winning more. Under it, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of whether earning it improved the world, left it about the same, or made it worse. Unless you make your dollars have colour[1], it falls into the traps described above. Fortunately, all capitalist societies, to some extent, assign their dollars colour, through the process called 'regulation'. Unfortunately, the process through which it is produced is called politics, for which we have no good solutions for, and a slew of bad ones. [1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

kuchenbecker 3y ago
Capitalism is based on the notion trade and commerce is not Zero-sum, as compared to mercantilism which it replaced. Wealth of Nations is the explanation of why zero-sum thinking is wrong and that the wealth is not gold but economic capacity. When coupled with the realization that "now" is more valuable than "later", you can put a price on now (interest). This leads to the finance industry, and using a small sum as leverage to borrow and invest a larger sum. Capital has value, because you can trade some capital now for more capital in the future. While I agree rent seeking exists, it's hard to imagine the world without lending and commerce. Capitalism is the natural result of private property.
- vkou 3y ago
  Trade is generally not zero-sum, but trade implies transaction between relative-peers. Nation states. Corporations. Groups that have similar amounts of power (Or that can lean on friends.) Many transactions that happen in a capitalist society are very much not transactions between peers. And those can absolutely be, and often are zero-sum, or negative-sum.
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    Can you give examples where transactions result in negative sum due to asymmetrical power, and what the proposed solution is? From my limited perspective, unless you actually do get rid of private ownership imbalances will exist and Power imbalances will exist regardless of the economic system.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

> Capitalism is not evil— it’s incredibly ingenious and productive. We all live much better for it. Well regulated capitalism is the least worst of all. Even Adam Smith himself didn't imagine "the invisible hand" as some silver bullet. Unbridled capitalism, much as the US has had since the 70s, is just the transitional period leading to feudalism.

hyperthesis 3y ago
He relates a case where workers paid by the piece worked themselves into the ground.