Can you expand on that please?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48469262

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

Let’s say we define personal data about, generated by or inferred from the actions of a natural person as owned by the society as a whole. And misuse is liable to 5% of annual turnover. It’s more or less GDPR. That seems viable - and I am sure an army of class action lawyers will be happy to help out

(Ok I need to work on a better proposal but I think this is more doable than you are allowing for)

I 100% agree on the need to counter emotional fire with emotional fire. And this is the right way to combat this sort of overreach

However, I do think that “the choir” need to rethink what is and is not privacy - a huge amount of the benefits of having our every waking moment monitored by the virtual world (which is going to happen) can be lost if we don’t allow epidemiology to follow our digital selves.

Detecting one’s word use is slipping might signal a trip to the doctors or a thousand other digital tells that will help us improve our lives. If we have to fight against ads and digital searches for terrorism, at least let’s get the benefits too.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434632

Points: 40

# Comments: 22

That’s solves an issue I have with all POC - a really good approach

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48423656

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48423597

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

It’s just that making such docs had next to no ROI 10 years ago. But today they are the difference between success and failure.

It’s fascinating - thank you

(and who writes the wiki / business rules ? Can they be reverse engineered from existing query stack? )

Sounds great - all the best

Edit: don’t take the above as criticism - just trying to fit new ideas into an old dog.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48301770

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Perhaps I need a longer format to put my views out and be challenged.

Ok. Yes tech requires a huge amount of infrastructure- yes. Just as car driving does, and how that infrastructure is laid out has a huge impact on the usability / direction of/ benefits of cars. But if I may, regulating tech so we all remain anonymous and untracked is just as bad as a corporate run world

And so ….

We will live in a almost totally transparent world - our daily interactions, voice, text and visual are likely recorded by someone at some point - how bosses interact with their employees, how nurses talk to patients and cashiers to customers, how parents talk to children - all of this will be recorded

And that can be a Good Thing. Imagine your boss getting real time feedback on coaching style, or you getting pointers on how not to argue with your wife.

The challenge is fairly simple - if we lose all secrets, the privacy is just the politeness of our neighbours. And while we can and should have strong laws on this, we need a social chnage to make serving someone ads based on their observable behaviour about the same level of social acceptability as crapping on their doorstep and then pouring petrol on and lighting it.

But we could see a world where privacy is protected but epidemiologists can pick apart the most thorny problems, human beings will be raised to be the very best they can be, and society become more communal and robust.

It’s possible - tech is neutral

And those societies and countries that embrace it will probably have that boost everyone thinks is coming from AI

I certainly agree with the estate / inheritance tax (the main issue is “resetting” the value to market at point of inheritance)

But as for the valuation problem I think that can only stretch so far. If you put up a million shares of $TechFirm as collateral for a loan to buy a yacht, it’s hard to claim they aren’t worth what the NYSE listed them as. If instead you put up 250,000 shares as partial collateral the bank has to put the missing collateral on its balance sheet (else some one is committing fraud)

The thing is it’s common. We on HN know all about “borrow till you die”, that Trump got Mar-a-lago valued at a billion dollars. The problem is not banks doing favours for valued clients, it’s so common and normalised that we don’t notice.

1. Wealthy more or less means able to live off the investments (passive income). Usually it means live off the interest of the interest (generally assessed as 8 million bucks nest egg)

2. It’s an obvious logical step but it is literally impossible for everyone to be independently wealthy. As in everyone cannot have a passive income.

3. So this debate just chnages when we ask “how do we make everyone wealthy” we can’t given the definition we have.

4. So we have to change the definition

5. How can we make everyone in society share fairly in the wealth that society has?

6. What if we made it much harder for wealth to Snowball into more wealth pulling it away from middle class

7. What if instead of a foolish wealth tax where we assess wealth, we stick to the “freely entered into transaction situation”

8. So Capital Gains taxes at same rates as income Also tax the “borrow till you die” idea - over a certain yearly amount, borrowing against your assets (ie Deutsche Bank lending you 100M against 1M shares of Blurb corporation should be treated as income just as if you sold the shares.)

I know that get hard but in the end we need money to circulate.

That’s how everyone shares

It was not possible to run a bus service until the roads were widened.

What caused that Inwonder?

In London the fire of 1666 presumably meant streets were made wider (to prevent spread of fire) - but why in Paris? New York was designed as a grid. Was this just a reaction to “urgh, we don’t want to be tired old cities like Damascus so they built wider streets?)

Was it the need to drive traffic through to supply urban areas and take out manufactured goods?

Was it better sanitation?