4 ms·

Maybe us "not so smart individuals" could be a small cog in some bigger picture, like a world interdisciplinary project to cure cancer (think Manhattan project,

by dsego 14y ago

Maybe us "not so smart individuals" could be a small cog in some bigger picture, like a world interdisciplinary project to cure cancer (think Manhattan project, or NASA). But in capitalism it's more important to work on SEO and sell stuff to people. All of the advances of modern computing boil down to advertising, such a shame.

icebraining 14y ago
Yeah, all those computers running medical devices, the algorithms behind genome sequencing, the software running on the Mars Rover - all advertising! I'm all for self-deprecation, but that's just insulting to people who use computers for good.
- dsego 14y ago
  I know, I was deliberately exaggerating for effect.
Domenic_S 14y ago
Selling stuff to people isn't a bad thing. My own personal example: I work for eBay Inc., so my job is to be a cog in a bigger picture like you said. That bigger picture is game-changing commerce. I don't know the numbers, but some large amount of people have found a way to make a full-time living selling on eBay, or Magento, or some other platform using PayPal to take payments. They feed their families by selling stuff in our marketplaces. On the buyer's side, we help people get what they want for the best price. That makes people's lives better, too. Maybe it's just rationalization. :) But I do think that many capitalist companies create a net positive for the world.
- solistice 14y ago
  I think you could deduce the net positive from comparing capitalist companies to communist combinats. Somehow they churn out more, cheaper and better. They're people who spout that that's materialism and bad, and then they say we should help the poor. But more, cheaper, better helps the poor. So no matter how you turn it, it's a net plus.
- solistice 14y ago
  I think you could deduce the net positive from comparing capitalist companies to communist combinats. Somehow they churn out more, cheaper and better. They're people who spout that that's materialism and bad, and then they say we should help the poor. But more, cheaper, better helps the poor. So no matter how you turn it, it's a net plus.
solistice 14y ago
>All of the advances of modern computing boil down to advertising. I could be very nitpicky about this, because it's not only technically wrong, but dead wrong. I'll leave it at "Advertising pays the dev, just like direct payment". >Like a world interdisciplinary project to cure cancer. I'm pretty sure there is an interdisciplinary, international effort to cure cancer, which is really easy to miss because other world projects that spend more of their money marketing themselves. Lots of things starting with UN. I honestly wouldn't want to see cancer research turn into the ineffectual behemoth some of those peace keeping missions by the UN are. >But in capitalism it's more important to work on SEO and sell stuff to people And in Communism it's more important to do pep rallys and posters to sell Communism to people. Whosh, expect economics to be some strategy game where you assign some people to cancer, and it gets solved faster, and you take those people from SEO, and you have a little "You won!" screen in the end? Ok, here's what'd happen. All those SEO people would likely just end up eating up research budgets, because they know SEO, but no biomolecular chemistry. Still, you assigned them, so you got to pay them, or at least throw them some bread so that they don't die. The impact on cancer research would likely be the same to the impact on Hacker News if we got a sudden, forced influx of carpenters, or cooks, or whatever. "RSS was some kind of drill right?" "Nah, that's HSS". Everytime I hear a grand project with a noble goal announced, I cringe. Because whatever it is, politics will screw it up, and noble goals are perfect excuses in front of the public (democratization of the middle east...yeah, right). And it will likely jeopardize other, more effective initiatives in the field where the metric is improvement, not good will(exp. Europe pouring money into Africa to feed (warlords/)the starving vs China investing in infrastructure and stability ("evil ressource grab, why haven't I thought of that"))

by dsego 14y ago

icebraining 14y ago

Yeah, all those computers running medical devices, the algorithms behind genome sequencing, the software running on the Mars Rover - all advertising! I'm all for self-deprecation, but that's just insulting to people who use computers for good.

dsego 14y ago
I know, I was deliberately exaggerating for effect.

Domenic_S 14y ago

Selling stuff to people isn't a bad thing. My own personal example: I work for eBay Inc., so my job is to be a cog in a bigger picture like you said. That bigger picture is game-changing commerce. I don't know the numbers, but some large amount of people have found a way to make a full-time living selling on eBay, or Magento, or some other platform using PayPal to take payments. They feed their families by selling stuff in our marketplaces. On the buyer's side, we help people get what they want for the best price. That makes people's lives better, too. Maybe it's just rationalization. :) But I do think that many capitalist companies create a net positive for the world.

solistice 14y ago
I think you could deduce the net positive from comparing capitalist companies to communist combinats. Somehow they churn out more, cheaper and better. They're people who spout that that's materialism and bad, and then they say we should help the poor. But more, cheaper, better helps the poor. So no matter how you turn it, it's a net plus.
solistice 14y ago
I think you could deduce the net positive from comparing capitalist companies to communist combinats. Somehow they churn out more, cheaper and better. They're people who spout that that's materialism and bad, and then they say we should help the poor. But more, cheaper, better helps the poor. So no matter how you turn it, it's a net plus.

solistice 14y ago

>All of the advances of modern computing boil down to advertising. I could be very nitpicky about this, because it's not only technically wrong, but dead wrong. I'll leave it at "Advertising pays the dev, just like direct payment". >Like a world interdisciplinary project to cure cancer. I'm pretty sure there is an interdisciplinary, international effort to cure cancer, which is really easy to miss because other world projects that spend more of their money marketing themselves. Lots of things starting with UN. I honestly wouldn't want to see cancer research turn into the ineffectual behemoth some of those peace keeping missions by the UN are. >But in capitalism it's more important to work on SEO and sell stuff to people And in Communism it's more important to do pep rallys and posters to sell Communism to people. Whosh, expect economics to be some strategy game where you assign some people to cancer, and it gets solved faster, and you take those people from SEO, and you have a little "You won!" screen in the end? Ok, here's what'd happen. All those SEO people would likely just end up eating up research budgets, because they know SEO, but no biomolecular chemistry. Still, you assigned them, so you got to pay them, or at least throw them some bread so that they don't die. The impact on cancer research would likely be the same to the impact on Hacker News if we got a sudden, forced influx of carpenters, or cooks, or whatever. "RSS was some kind of drill right?" "Nah, that's HSS". Everytime I hear a grand project with a noble goal announced, I cringe. Because whatever it is, politics will screw it up, and noble goals are perfect excuses in front of the public (democratization of the middle east...yeah, right). And it will likely jeopardize other, more effective initiatives in the field where the metric is improvement, not good will(exp. Europe pouring money into Africa to feed (warlords/)the starving vs China investing in infrastructure and stability ("evil ressource grab, why haven't I thought of that"))