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?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48167162

Points: 5

# Comments: 2

That helps me frame the experts vs science idea.

Science is just the parts that evidence does not disprove.

Expertise is understanding how the various explanations we have with science fits together, framing it as it were, and using that understanding to make sensible directional choices. Of course those predictions may later be proven wrong (light is a wave, waves need mediums, ether must exist) but they are more likely than guessing

Is a painting by AI art? Sure

Is a painting by Monet better than one painted by me? Most people would say yes.

Can some people explain why? Yes. They are not “experts” in the same way the Oxford Professor of nuclear physics is an expert but it is on the same scale.

Or possibly I am just hallucinating the argument because you prompted me to…

So it’s hard for people to judge brilliance themselves, but we can rely on other peoples judgement if enough people follow the crowd or put enough passion in. (Not saying that makes it right - science is not a democracy, but it’s a great heuristic for 8 billion people)

Once you get passed a minimum level of decent we have to rely on experts and the communal agreement of experts to decide. Sometimes that easy (is the electrical wiring on fire) sometimes it’s much harder. (Insert controversial wiring discussion here)

I suspect The same applies here.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48158570

Points: 4

# Comments: 0