brightstep

11 ms·

91.
by brightstep 5y ago
Can't wait until law enforcement can compel me to put on the mind reading device.
92.
by brightstep 5y ago
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot of AnCaps among Web3 advocates. I know there are also leftists who think it will challenge capitalism. Both parties are wrong to think a technology alone can make the changes they're loo
93.
by brightstep 5y ago
I think there's a class of crypto believers who see "Web3" as a political movement, a way to dilute or break the power of institutions like e.g. the fed, Facebook, etc. To them, the grapevine is a secret sauce that will magic
94.
by brightstep 5y ago
The problem with the search for technological salvation is that it allows us to avoid talking about the fact that regardless, we do need to leave fossil fuels in the ground starting yesterday .
95.
by brightstep 5y ago
The solution you describe has already been found: stop burning and leave fossil fuels in the ground. Technological solutions are the opposite. They're an attempt to avoid the what everyone already knows is the answer.
96.
by brightstep 5y ago
Things look like competing groups, just as they do now with corporate control over web 2 infrastructure
97.
by brightstep 5y ago
Governments could destroy crypto if they wanted. See China as the most obvious example. A novel technology doesn't stand much of a chance against men with guns.
98.
by brightstep 5y ago
It's purposely missing. Crypto proponents believe they can use the technology to change the world without any coordinated human interaction. It is a political movement with no politics.
99.
by brightstep 5y ago
In terms used by the memo discussed by the article, blockchain are still susceptible to indirect and platform centralization.
100.
by brightstep 5y ago
This is what crypto believers always miss. No way in hell will powerful people and organizations allow us little people to threaten their power in any way. That's why "Web3", if it happens, will only serve their interests. Or
101.
by brightstep 5y ago
I think you're getting voted down for confusing wording but you're right. This article says "well, we accept that we're not gonna do anything about climate change, but here's why actually that might not be so bad!&q
102.
by brightstep 5y ago
When do you know "Web3" isn't going to meaningfully change anything? When the same powerful people who benefited from web2 are pushing it as a "revolution".
103.
by brightstep 5y ago
No, I'm not advocating abstention from voting. Maybe I was a little too harsh. Sometimes voting can make a big difference, but more often than not it doesn't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage.
104.
by brightstep 5y ago
Because elections are for a different purpose than we are taught. We are told to vote for candidates who most closely match our preferences but see them turn from their promises, time after time, toward a bipartisan project of war, environm
105.
by brightstep 5y ago
Code review is usually a bad place to catch design flaws, unless it's done early. Usually a bad design means re-doing a lot of the work. That means either getting management buy in or not hitting expected velocity. If not communicated
106.
by brightstep 5y ago
The sooner it dies, the less carbon we'll dump into the atmosphere so people can buy monkey jpegs
107.
by brightstep 5y ago
When a technology is as destructive as many crypto projects, it makes a lot of sense to spend your energy building a negative perception.
108.
by brightstep 5y ago
A modern civilian conservation corps.
109.
by brightstep 5y ago
Every decision a company makes is about maximizing profit. that necessarily means saving on labor costs, which means firing people, paying as little as possible, extracting unpaid overtime (e.g. "crunch"), etc. That being the case
110.
by brightstep 5y ago
You have to remember that the first amendment was written to protect people like the founders - wealthy, bourgeois, powerful men. It was never intended to create a press that challenges state power.
111.
by brightstep 5y ago
Advertisements are violent, they are invasive and manipulative. Agree, they should be illegal.
112.
by brightstep 5y ago
so basically, no questioning of capitalism on HN, got it.
113.
by brightstep 5y ago
"Profit is human nature" is a fundamental myth of capitalism, and obviously untrue considering the many economic systems which existed until the last few hundred years.
114.
by brightstep 5y ago
You sound like someone from the church shouting down a heretical scientist.
115.
by brightstep 5y ago
This is the big question most "web3" proponents miss or ignore. They want a decentralized internet to combat the power of FAANG, governments, etc. But those powers will _never_ allow a technology to succeed if it meaningfully thre
116.
by brightstep 5y ago
A correct prediction of the former doesn't imply a correct prediction of the latter. For what it's worth, I think it will become stable at around zero USD.
117.
by brightstep 5y ago
Yes! That's what I've been saying. If crypto succeeds, it will be because it serves capital (what crypto believers refer to as "centralixed authority") not in spite of it.
118.
by brightstep 5y ago
A new technology will not kill FAANG. What supports them is not "web2", it is a social and political structure. To defeat them requires working in, or around, those structures.
119.
by brightstep 5y ago
Don't forget "solves problem with blockchain that enables one of the first two"
120.
by brightstep 5y ago
The capacity of crypto believers to ignore social and political context is limitless. It has to be, because if you bring that context into your thinking, all their hopes for the technology fall apart.

More ›