4 ms·

I think I disagree, specifically because geohot does security. Security is fundamentally about finding the difference between what people wish or think is true,

I think I disagree, specifically because geohot does security. Security is fundamentally about finding the difference between what people wish or think is true, and what is actually true on a mechanical physical real and actionable level. That involves deep analysis skills and disregarding common consensuses in order to rebuild how things actually work from the ground up. Questioning establishment dogma is largely forbidden, no matter what your establishment is, so it's absolutely worth considering outsider assessments. Wars test base assumptions. It seems obvious that in a war, ability to take things out of the ground, turn them into bullets/drones/etc, and then get them to the front line is what matters, not what the stock market says, and not claims made with the backing of a military (such as how much the US dollar is worth, or who owns what IP). I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, although I understand where they come from.

fwipsy 2y ago
Your first paragraph is like saying "this train conductor does transportation, so we should let him fly a plane." Perhaps knowing security proves that the author is intelligent, and perhaps some of the same skills apply, but it's not a given that he will have good ideas, especially on fraught topics where it's easy to be misled by ideological bias. The author doesn't deserve any more consideration than any other outsider perspective.
- ryandamm 2y ago
  Yeah, there's a known problem with smart, technical people approaching fields about which they know very little. The analysis, to a third party, often sounds smart (the author is undeniably smart!), but without having expert context, you miss why it's so, so, so wrong. And I'm not even an economics expert. I've just read more about it, or read more critically, than geohot. And I can tell you he's wrong, not because he's an outsider but because his analysis does not make sense. Copernicus had well-reasoned, self-consistent arguments that incorporated previous models, and produced better results. This doesn't. There is a rubric for how one should score outsider contributions, even if you want to allow for revolutions in a particular field. This essay doesn't rise to that level. In fact, it matches the first pattern -- smart person outside their field, makes ass of self -- much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    I agree with your overall point. I think software security in particular is a skillset that is very well suited to deconstructing establishment dogma. The entire exercise of (novel) software security (specifically research) is ignoring what everyone says and asking how things actually work detail by detail. You look for indirect signals that betray other information to help understand underlying structure allowing you to better poke at it with whatever information prodding tools you have access to. The electricity graph is a very good example of that. A machine plugs into a wall and uses electricity. An aggregate graph of electricity consumption contains the information of how many machines are running in aggregate. You can argue that data is wrong, and I'm open to believing it is since I believe you can have a privately owned power source, but if you don't dispute the data, then a graph of electricity is very much a graph of aggregate manufacturing, also aggregate computing. Aggregate electricity should have a deeply entwined relationship with aggregate economic output. I'm not an economist, so apologies for any misused terms. Electricity is basically a raw material component for almost any good, even services likely have a relationship with electricity. I find that analysis cogent and satisfying. I've traveled a fair amount, and the amount of "third world"ism I see in the US is shocking. Before traveling it never occurred to me that San Francisco literally literally has slums. Meanwhile many places in "poorer" foreign countries are nicer than things I can find in the US even if I were to go looking for them.
saagarjha 2y ago
I do security. It does not make me an expert in economics. In fact I know, even with no real economics education past high school, why going back to the gold standard is generally unworkable.

fwipsy 2y ago

Your first paragraph is like saying "this train conductor does transportation, so we should let him fly a plane." Perhaps knowing security proves that the author is intelligent, and perhaps some of the same skills apply, but it's not a given that he will have good ideas, especially on fraught topics where it's easy to be misled by ideological bias. The author doesn't deserve any more consideration than any other outsider perspective.

ryandamm 2y ago
Yeah, there's a known problem with smart, technical people approaching fields about which they know very little. The analysis, to a third party, often sounds smart (the author is undeniably smart!), but without having expert context, you miss why it's so, so, so wrong. And I'm not even an economics expert. I've just read more about it, or read more critically, than geohot. And I can tell you he's wrong, not because he's an outsider but because his analysis does not make sense. Copernicus had well-reasoned, self-consistent arguments that incorporated previous models, and produced better results. This doesn't. There is a rubric for how one should score outsider contributions, even if you want to allow for revolutions in a particular field. This essay doesn't rise to that level. In fact, it matches the first pattern -- smart person outside their field, makes ass of self -- much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  I agree with your overall point. I think software security in particular is a skillset that is very well suited to deconstructing establishment dogma. The entire exercise of (novel) software security (specifically research) is ignoring what everyone says and asking how things actually work detail by detail. You look for indirect signals that betray other information to help understand underlying structure allowing you to better poke at it with whatever information prodding tools you have access to. The electricity graph is a very good example of that. A machine plugs into a wall and uses electricity. An aggregate graph of electricity consumption contains the information of how many machines are running in aggregate. You can argue that data is wrong, and I'm open to believing it is since I believe you can have a privately owned power source, but if you don't dispute the data, then a graph of electricity is very much a graph of aggregate manufacturing, also aggregate computing. Aggregate electricity should have a deeply entwined relationship with aggregate economic output. I'm not an economist, so apologies for any misused terms. Electricity is basically a raw material component for almost any good, even services likely have a relationship with electricity. I find that analysis cogent and satisfying. I've traveled a fair amount, and the amount of "third world"ism I see in the US is shocking. Before traveling it never occurred to me that San Francisco literally literally has slums. Meanwhile many places in "poorer" foreign countries are nicer than things I can find in the US even if I were to go looking for them.

saagarjha 2y ago

I do security. It does not make me an expert in economics. In fact I know, even with no real economics education past high school, why going back to the gold standard is generally unworkable.