We’re all of the same species on the same planet. Smart people do not give rise to reality itself. I’d argue most smart people had social network access most do not and grew up free to explore human nature rather than have to grind to eat.
Bill Gates’ father was a founding partner of huge law firm, Musk’s family gem mine is well known. Bezos had dozens with tens of thousands just lying around to buy into his vision. Trump got a meager 1 million kick start.
Nepotism and PR are what made so many.
None of these people have satisfied the burden of proof they’re that special and were not merely empowered by a post-war reality the US economy had nowhere to go but up as all other nations were smoking craters.
EDIT: I see post comment, the parent i responded to has thus rewritten their comment.
I give Reddit and Twitter a year, maybe two, before 99% of the discourse is non-human. There's not going to be any stopping it without strict identification - state ID, driver's license, passport. The days of pseudonymity look to be not long for this earth.
Its funny because Moot, when asked about the importance of free speech and anonymity, he exclaimed that anonymity is what enables people to speak their truth, as it removes the risk of retribution to their IRL personal existence.
I wonder if this enablement of chatgpt and paired with anonymity will drive the signal to noise ratio down to a point where curated dialogues must be had.
People get up, goto jobs, grow food, make art, procreate, build machines.
The world is not the literal dystopia of 1984, but the reliance on coded, simple minded chants to understand the world is alive and well. Just looking for oneself is far too raw, too real, and uncouth for the sensible, educated man. I do declare.
I like this. The big platforms will become nothing but a sea of noise, and that'll self-select those with good information to platforms that ChatGPT is incompatible with.
100% agree on the value prop of AI. The next decade -- even year -- of AI development is going to be astonishing in terms of what it delivers. I don't think we even understand or appreciate the full scope of what's about to happen.
But there will also be entire categories of old human behaviors and businesses that can now be jammed and made less fun. Social media is just one of them.
Sure, you can respond with something like "No worries, it was a nice try at humor. Keep up the good work!" or "Haha, it's all good. I appreciate the effort you put into trying to make it funny."
It's always good to be understanding and encouraging when someone tries to be funny, even if it doesn't land as well as they expected.
XP
I understand that you may be going through a difficult time right now, and the thought of suicide may seem like the only solution. However, it is important to remember that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. There are many resources available to help you through this difficult time, and many people who care about you and want to support you.
If you're feeling suicidal, please reach out for help right away. You can call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in the US at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or you can visit the website www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org to find a helpline in your country. Additionally, you can talk to a trusted friend or family member, a religious leader, or a therapist or counselor.
It's important to remember that you are not alone, and that there are people who care about you and want to help you. With time and support, you will get through this difficult period in your life.
Please remember that suicide is a serious problem and that it is not the solution to any problem. You deserve to live and be happy.
--
Wholesome ChatGPT. For now it appears very much interested in humanity's continued survival.
Am I missing something, or is the parent really as off-topic as it appears?
So what your saying is thousands of people start with the same or an even higher level of opportunity and still fail to achieve even a fraction of what they did?
Of course Gates and Musk deserve credit for making good decisions and putting in the effort but maybe not the God like status (really Musk) people ascribe to them.
Bezos didn't come from wealth. Don't attribute his success to nepotism. He was shrewd, clever, cunning, at the right place at the right time, and made all of the right calls.
However, government limits on concentrated ownership would ensure that free market place is functioning properly. What the neoliberal and Reganist's skip over is that free market competition seems to be an unstable state and will tend toward monopoly because the playing field isn't level. There will always be unscrupulous actors and things like the Fed messing with money supply. The role of the government should be to ensure a level playing field, one of which is preventing anti-market mergers.
It's a perfectly reasonable avenue to explore in core productive industries like energy and food.
On the other hand, we don't let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the official policy is to just give them whatever they want. We rarely use our monopsony power as is. (This is finally changing as part of the IRA.)
IMHO this shouldn't happen. It's one of the most annoying ideological inconsistencies I find among the Republican party.
The political rhetoric centers on eliminating or reducing government regulations and privatization. Ok cool, it can be good in many sectors. There's a lot to be said about avoiding large bloated bureaucracies and undue government interference. However then as soon as the big banks or other big businesses get into trouble after engaging in risky behavior they're as eager as the Democrats to bail them out (well at least their favorites).
Personally I do believe in fiscal responsibility, and think it applies even more so at large corporate levels. You didn't plan and save enough in the boom times and spent record profits to do stock buybacks? Well perhaps your company should go into chapter 11 bankruptcy.
I think people don't realize that when a big business like say American Airlines goes into bankruptcy, it's rare that the airline and jobs will disappear. It often means the management of the company is booted with a chance for new ownership more competent management to take over. That's as it should be, IMHO. It's the weeding mechanism for free markets.
> so it's already our problem when private companies go into debt, why not force out the profit-seeking middle man?
That's generally not worked too well, unless it's fixed infrastructure like power, water, etc and those seem to work best at a state or county level. Then they're still structured as corporations, just ones that are publicly owned and locally managed.
The airlines got one in 2020 because they have some of the largest union contracts in the country and we don't want to lose that, but that wasn't a pro-management thing.
On the other hand, a social wealth fund would be good, because it's less risky than owning individual companies.
Doesn't seem to happen, though. HN consensus seems to have changed from Google being an unstoppable monopoly to being unable to sustain its business model.
> I'd like to see nationalization considered
There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
The contradiction is resolved once you recognize that advertising is not productive labor, unlike food distribution. Nobody can beat Google at what they do, but there's ultimately not a sustainable organic need for what they're selling.
I don't think many tech companies are attractive targets for nationalization for this reason.
> There's plenty of negative historical experience with nationalization.
In immature, geopolitically vulnerable economies, often during times of general upheaval. A targeted, degenerative process that is properly incentivized would be different. A "finish line" where getting bought out would be a desirable outcome for most involved.
Yes, it is. Otherwise people wouldn't pay for it.
Is it not simply inevitable that the entities that like having monopolies will continue to accrue capital (political power) to the point that they can influence the government away from preventing monopoly?
We have real world evidence: the usa, and its monopolies and functional monopolies. See: O&G, telecom, ISP, food monopolies for certain restaurants and grocery stores in food deserts.
These entities have acquired more capital, and thus more political power. How do you prevent this?
Money and wealth have more influence and power than ever over our politics.
Populism is a dirty word.
Progressivism used to mean seeking economic fairness Teddy Roosevelt-style and now it means woke identity politics.
Whistleblowers of any kind have no protections anymore.
Any talk of reforming the system is seen as anti-American by the free market crowd.
There's more to binge on Netflix.
What basis are you extending to the government an abuse of it's power? Are there not still already numerous other options existing in the same location, sometimes even being directly across the street from each other?
I don't understand why so many want to be under the boot of city/state/federal, and everything in between. It's mind boggling.
I think people need to be more honest, is the success of the US in spite of the government, or is it because of the government that we are who we are today, and further the future. I will concede all my politics from that point if we can give a direct answer. And not the bullshit weasel answer where it is 'both', it can't be, one operates and limits the other overwhelmingly by force, that is not cooperation, that is coercion.