5 ms·

"everything depending on GPUs would quickly grind to a halt." is there any one thing essential depending on the existence of GPU processors ?

Auracle 1y ago
Probably not, but it would still absolutely crash the economy. All we “need” is food + water, shelter, and medicine (kind of). I’d guess people’s economic output doesn’t directly contribute to those.
feoren 1y ago
The word "essential" is lifting your entire argument for you. If "essential" means whatever bdauvergne on Hacker News decides humans deserve to have in their lives, and nothing else, then sure, GPUs are non-essential. But that's not up to you. You don't get to pick and choose what other humans deserve, what they want, and what they are allowed to have. That's all "essential" has ever meant: whatever I, the author, whose Word is obviously Divine, think Other People deserve to have. Why even bother using that word when talking about the economy? It's meaningless. Get rid of it and your argument collapses. People want GPUs.
- bpt3 1y ago
  Or you could recognize that "essential" has a meaning in economic/financial terms, but that would entirely deflate the ad hominem attack you launched to avoid acknowledging that the answer to his question is: "Not really, with a few possible exceptions in some edge cases." There's absolutely a reason to differentiate between essential and non-essential goods when talking about the economy. Why do you think the US runs a huge food production surplus? Why do you think publicly traded stock sectors include consumer staples (essential goods) and consumer discretionary (non-essential goods and services)?
  - feoren 1y ago
    > Or you could recognize that "essential" has a meaning in economic/financial terms I do not recognize that. That is the point of my argument. A large portion of economics is rich people trying to justify their own greed as being moral. Classifying goods as "essential" vs. "non-essential" is a way of telling poor people what they're allowed to have, and always has been. A good goes from "non-essential" to "essential" only when rich people are worried they'll get guillotined if the poor don't have access to it. I'm aware that it has a definition in terms of what people are able to stop purchasing when their income goes down, or how consumption relates to income levels in general, but the former is a problematic definition for many reasons, and the latter does not actually coincide particularly well with the categories of goods people list off when they think of "essential goods". Humans in real life just don't respond to changing conditions the same way the little econs in your head do; they way you've decided they "should". Ever heard that humans don't "behave logically"? Yeah, that's economists with overly simplified models being annoyed that (mostly) poor people don't act the way that they've decided poor people should act. See the trend? Ask four economists write out a list of "essential goods" and you'll get five different lists. That is not how definitions work. Ask four mathematicians whether something is a Commutative Ring or not and they'll all agree. That's a definition. "Essential" does not have a definition. Its meaning shifts depending on which group the author of the Wall Street Journal op-ed you're reading wants to villainize this time.
    - bpt3 1y ago
      > I do not recognize that. That is the point of my argument. And my point is that you're going to continue to be frustrated and disappointed by refusing to use the same terminology for a topic as everyone else. > A large portion of economics is rich people trying to justify their own greed as being moral. Nope, but that view explains most of your reasoning. > Classifying goods as "essential" vs. "non-essential" is a way of telling poor people what they're allowed to have, and always has been. A good goes from "non-essential" to "essential" only when rich people are worried they'll get guillotined if the poor don't have access to it. Good lord. Which of these is more essential for human life? Food, or a luxury car? Basic medicine, or a trip to a casino? No one is stopping "poor people" from buying things from either category, but people clearly prioritize one over the other when funds are limited. > I'm aware that it has a definition in terms of what people are able to stop purchasing when their income goes down, or how consumption relates to income levels in general, but the former is a problematic definition for many reasons, and the latter does not actually coincide particularly well with the categories of goods people list off when they think of "essential goods". Humans in real life just don't respond to changing conditions the same way the little econs in your head do; they way you've decided they "should". So you do acknowledge the actual definition, you just refuse to accept it because you'd rather rage against the machine? Have fun with that. > Ever heard that humans don't "behave logically"? Yeah, that's economists with overly simplified models being annoyed that (mostly) poor people don't act the way that they've decided poor people should act. See the trend? Rich people also don't behave logically, for the record. It's almost like this class war you're describing is a figment of your imagination. > Ask four economists write out a list of "essential goods" and you'll get five different lists. That is not how definitions work. Ask four mathematicians whether something is a Commutative Ring or not and they'll all agree. That's a definition. "Essential" does not have a definition. Its meaning shifts depending on which group the author of the Wall Street Journal op-ed you're reading wants to villainize this time. Congratulations on your discovery that economics is not a hard science. You already said that essential does have a widely agreed upon definition above, so the rest of this rant seems odd.
- pyrale 1y ago
  > If "essential" means whatever bdauvergne on Hacker News decides humans deserve to have in their lives, and nothing else, then sure, GPUs are non-essential. You sure have a weird definition of it. To make a quantitative claim, I'm not sure anyone would die immediately if Nvidia disappeared overnight, except maybe for a few traders. The potential long term casualties would likely be related to it possibly triggering a stock market crash, rather than first-order consequences of the company no longer delivering products. Obviously, the disappearance of a company intimately related to logistics would be harder to mitigate. > You don't get to pick and choose what other humans deserve The crux of your confusion seems to be that you don't make a distinction between "deserve" and "need". Food and entertainment are both things everyone deserves, but only food is required for everyone to make it to the end of the month.
  - username332211 1y ago
    Imagine for a second that the year was 1880. You would say that telephones aren't essential, wouldn't you? In the previous 25 centuries of recorded history we have lived without them. Nobody's going to die if they were to stop working. And thus that the valuation of the Bell System must be based on pure hype. Right?
    - timeon 1y ago
      If they have stopped working today it would be disaster. If it stopped at that time, life would go on. It is not about technology but how society adapted around it.
      - username332211 1y ago
        "Disaster" is a very subjective term. One man's disaster is another's normality. How many people died between 1812 and 1815 because there were no Trans-Atlantic telephone lines? About 30 thousand soldiers, wasn't it? Probably quite a few civilians as well. I'd call the preventable death of 30 thousand men a disaster, wouldn't you? But in 1812 it was business as usual. Would you say penicillin isn't essential, just because it's 1928 and people are accustomed to deaths from bacterial infections?
pletnes 1y ago
Weather forecasting thus farming, fishing, logistics.

Auracle 1y ago

Probably not, but it would still absolutely crash the economy. All we “need” is food + water, shelter, and medicine (kind of). I’d guess people’s economic output doesn’t directly contribute to those.

feoren 1y ago

The word "essential" is lifting your entire argument for you. If "essential" means whatever bdauvergne on Hacker News decides humans deserve to have in their lives, and nothing else, then sure, GPUs are non-essential. But that's not up to you. You don't get to pick and choose what other humans deserve, what they want, and what they are allowed to have. That's all "essential" has ever meant: whatever I, the author, whose Word is obviously Divine, think Other People deserve to have. Why even bother using that word when talking about the economy? It's meaningless. Get rid of it and your argument collapses. People want GPUs.

bpt3 1y ago
Or you could recognize that "essential" has a meaning in economic/financial terms, but that would entirely deflate the ad hominem attack you launched to avoid acknowledging that the answer to his question is: "Not really, with a few possible exceptions in some edge cases." There's absolutely a reason to differentiate between essential and non-essential goods when talking about the economy. Why do you think the US runs a huge food production surplus? Why do you think publicly traded stock sectors include consumer staples (essential goods) and consumer discretionary (non-essential goods and services)?
- feoren 1y ago
  > Or you could recognize that "essential" has a meaning in economic/financial terms I do not recognize that. That is the point of my argument. A large portion of economics is rich people trying to justify their own greed as being moral. Classifying goods as "essential" vs. "non-essential" is a way of telling poor people what they're allowed to have, and always has been. A good goes from "non-essential" to "essential" only when rich people are worried they'll get guillotined if the poor don't have access to it. I'm aware that it has a definition in terms of what people are able to stop purchasing when their income goes down, or how consumption relates to income levels in general, but the former is a problematic definition for many reasons, and the latter does not actually coincide particularly well with the categories of goods people list off when they think of "essential goods". Humans in real life just don't respond to changing conditions the same way the little econs in your head do; they way you've decided they "should". Ever heard that humans don't "behave logically"? Yeah, that's economists with overly simplified models being annoyed that (mostly) poor people don't act the way that they've decided poor people should act. See the trend? Ask four economists write out a list of "essential goods" and you'll get five different lists. That is not how definitions work. Ask four mathematicians whether something is a Commutative Ring or not and they'll all agree. That's a definition. "Essential" does not have a definition. Its meaning shifts depending on which group the author of the Wall Street Journal op-ed you're reading wants to villainize this time.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    > I do not recognize that. That is the point of my argument. And my point is that you're going to continue to be frustrated and disappointed by refusing to use the same terminology for a topic as everyone else. > A large portion of economics is rich people trying to justify their own greed as being moral. Nope, but that view explains most of your reasoning. > Classifying goods as "essential" vs. "non-essential" is a way of telling poor people what they're allowed to have, and always has been. A good goes from "non-essential" to "essential" only when rich people are worried they'll get guillotined if the poor don't have access to it. Good lord. Which of these is more essential for human life? Food, or a luxury car? Basic medicine, or a trip to a casino? No one is stopping "poor people" from buying things from either category, but people clearly prioritize one over the other when funds are limited. > I'm aware that it has a definition in terms of what people are able to stop purchasing when their income goes down, or how consumption relates to income levels in general, but the former is a problematic definition for many reasons, and the latter does not actually coincide particularly well with the categories of goods people list off when they think of "essential goods". Humans in real life just don't respond to changing conditions the same way the little econs in your head do; they way you've decided they "should". So you do acknowledge the actual definition, you just refuse to accept it because you'd rather rage against the machine? Have fun with that. > Ever heard that humans don't "behave logically"? Yeah, that's economists with overly simplified models being annoyed that (mostly) poor people don't act the way that they've decided poor people should act. See the trend? Rich people also don't behave logically, for the record. It's almost like this class war you're describing is a figment of your imagination. > Ask four economists write out a list of "essential goods" and you'll get five different lists. That is not how definitions work. Ask four mathematicians whether something is a Commutative Ring or not and they'll all agree. That's a definition. "Essential" does not have a definition. Its meaning shifts depending on which group the author of the Wall Street Journal op-ed you're reading wants to villainize this time. Congratulations on your discovery that economics is not a hard science. You already said that essential does have a widely agreed upon definition above, so the rest of this rant seems odd.
pyrale 1y ago
> If "essential" means whatever bdauvergne on Hacker News decides humans deserve to have in their lives, and nothing else, then sure, GPUs are non-essential. You sure have a weird definition of it. To make a quantitative claim, I'm not sure anyone would die immediately if Nvidia disappeared overnight, except maybe for a few traders. The potential long term casualties would likely be related to it possibly triggering a stock market crash, rather than first-order consequences of the company no longer delivering products. Obviously, the disappearance of a company intimately related to logistics would be harder to mitigate. > You don't get to pick and choose what other humans deserve The crux of your confusion seems to be that you don't make a distinction between "deserve" and "need". Food and entertainment are both things everyone deserves, but only food is required for everyone to make it to the end of the month.
- username332211 1y ago
  Imagine for a second that the year was 1880. You would say that telephones aren't essential, wouldn't you? In the previous 25 centuries of recorded history we have lived without them. Nobody's going to die if they were to stop working. And thus that the valuation of the Bell System must be based on pure hype. Right?
  - timeon 1y ago
    If they have stopped working today it would be disaster. If it stopped at that time, life would go on. It is not about technology but how society adapted around it.
    - username332211 1y ago
      "Disaster" is a very subjective term. One man's disaster is another's normality. How many people died between 1812 and 1815 because there were no Trans-Atlantic telephone lines? About 30 thousand soldiers, wasn't it? Probably quite a few civilians as well. I'd call the preventable death of 30 thousand men a disaster, wouldn't you? But in 1812 it was business as usual. Would you say penicillin isn't essential, just because it's 1928 and people are accustomed to deaths from bacterial infections?

pletnes 1y ago

Weather forecasting thus farming, fishing, logistics.