5 ms·

An Ubernerd Weighs In

39 points by jc123 13y ago

greenyoda 13y ago
Prior discussion (57 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6981007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6981007
- jc123 13y ago
  Thanks, the edited title is more descriptive, but it wasn't the original title and I didn't find the duplicate using HNSearch at the time.
  - corresation 13y ago
    HN disallows duplicate URLs from being submitted (if you try it simply considers your submission a vote for the original), but in this case your variant lacks the trailing forward slash. Which is weird given that the NY Times site automatically redirects URLs that lack that trailing slash, appending it on.
andrewljohnson 13y ago
The biggest non-starter in his original essay was that mining is wasteful. Krugman doesn't understand orders of magnitude. The mathematical fallacy is that the cost of mining never adds up. The total amount of energy ever expended by all miners that will ever be produced amounts to such a small amount of total power as to be inconsequential compared to the commerce transacted. Krugman should optimize a few computer programs, and then he might understand why he's barking up the wrong tree. Krugman misses what every nerd, uber or otherwise, sees plain as day. The mining is simply irrelevant. There will be 22M coins, give or take, and the joules to find the hashes simply do not matter. And when the coins are all found, the miners will continue to simply clear transactions, which any network needs, and furthermore still doesn't create any meaningful cost. Bitcoin has problems, but the mining is beside the point. and his follow on argument is... bitcoin is valuable now because nerds conflate economics with technology, and will soon pop? That's insipid and unarguable - it's just an ad hominem attack on a group.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  It wouldn't be the first time Krugman's been wrong about a transformative technology. http://imgur.com/B9oMzZd http://imgur.com/B9oMzZd
  - thomasz 13y ago
    Does this fallacy has a name?
    - aric 13y ago
      Considering a person's history of astounding lack of understanding isn't a fallacy. It's telling. It's far more telling than any award given to a person for work that circularly adheres to the vision and acceptance of those who bestow the award. The only fallacy is when people grant that person's thoughts higher or lesser value while the words don't stand by their own merit and explanation. That fallacy is what happens. Shocking degrees of ineptitude are given enormous weight in society, often through glamor alone.
      - sentenza 13y ago
        Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Krugman explicitly talks about things that he as gotten wrong over the years, the internet thing being one of them and some of his predictions regarding Japan being another. Compare that to almost all other punditconomist, who refuse they admit error. (Btw, one should never rely too much on advice from anybody who has never admitted being wrong. Those people are either liars or deluded.) In addition to that, he _ALL THE FUCKING TIME_ writes about how recent years have shown that you cannot argue from position (in doing so often joking about "the award") but that your arguments must carry themselves no matter who you are. So essentially, the Krugman whose blog I read, again and again states the exact opposite of the things that you accuse him and his "adherents" of.
        aric 13y ago
        > Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Nothing I've written says that there aren't people who shun such fallacy and always think critically. However, there are a great deal of people who use Krugman as a crutch in thought and in citations, especially due to the prize. If you're not one of them, good for you. My underlying point is pretty simple. Here's a parallel so we're not focused on Krugman. End-of-the-world predictors, and the like, sometimes recant about being wrong too and may joke about it. What do we take from this? Being wrong about matters that are painfully obvious is of valid consideration, especially when judging future patterns of unsubstantiated claims in the same domains. We mustn't forget the grains of salt.

39 points by jc123 13y ago

Prior discussion (57 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6981007 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6981007

jc123 13y ago
Thanks, the edited title is more descriptive, but it wasn't the original title and I didn't find the duplicate using HNSearch at the time.
- corresation 13y ago
  HN disallows duplicate URLs from being submitted (if you try it simply considers your submission a vote for the original), but in this case your variant lacks the trailing forward slash. Which is weird given that the NY Times site automatically redirects URLs that lack that trailing slash, appending it on.

andrewljohnson 13y ago

The biggest non-starter in his original essay was that mining is wasteful. Krugman doesn't understand orders of magnitude. The mathematical fallacy is that the cost of mining never adds up. The total amount of energy ever expended by all miners that will ever be produced amounts to such a small amount of total power as to be inconsequential compared to the commerce transacted. Krugman should optimize a few computer programs, and then he might understand why he's barking up the wrong tree. Krugman misses what every nerd, uber or otherwise, sees plain as day. The mining is simply irrelevant. There will be 22M coins, give or take, and the joules to find the hashes simply do not matter. And when the coins are all found, the miners will continue to simply clear transactions, which any network needs, and furthermore still doesn't create any meaningful cost. Bitcoin has problems, but the mining is beside the point. and his follow on argument is... bitcoin is valuable now because nerds conflate economics with technology, and will soon pop? That's insipid and unarguable - it's just an ad hominem attack on a group.

mcantelon 13y ago
It wouldn't be the first time Krugman's been wrong about a transformative technology. http://imgur.com/B9oMzZd http://imgur.com/B9oMzZd
- thomasz 13y ago
  Does this fallacy has a name?
  - aric 13y ago
    Considering a person's history of astounding lack of understanding isn't a fallacy. It's telling. It's far more telling than any award given to a person for work that circularly adheres to the vision and acceptance of those who bestow the award. The only fallacy is when people grant that person's thoughts higher or lesser value while the words don't stand by their own merit and explanation. That fallacy is what happens. Shocking degrees of ineptitude are given enormous weight in society, often through glamor alone.
    - sentenza 13y ago
      Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Krugman explicitly talks about things that he as gotten wrong over the years, the internet thing being one of them and some of his predictions regarding Japan being another. Compare that to almost all other punditconomist, who refuse they admit error. (Btw, one should never rely too much on advice from anybody who has never admitted being wrong. Those people are either liars or deluded.) In addition to that, he _ALL THE FUCKING TIME_ writes about how recent years have shown that you cannot argue from position (in doing so often joking about "the award") but that your arguments must carry themselves no matter who you are. So essentially, the Krugman whose blog I read, again and again states the exact opposite of the things that you accuse him and his "adherents" of.
      - aric 13y ago
        > Ahem. What on earth are you talking about? Nothing I've written says that there aren't people who shun such fallacy and always think critically. However, there are a great deal of people who use Krugman as a crutch in thought and in citations, especially due to the prize. If you're not one of them, good for you. My underlying point is pretty simple. Here's a parallel so we're not focused on Krugman. End-of-the-world predictors, and the like, sometimes recant about being wrong too and may joke about it. What do we take from this? Being wrong about matters that are painfully obvious is of valid consideration, especially when judging future patterns of unsubstantiated claims in the same domains. We mustn't forget the grains of salt.