TelmoMenezes

> It’s unfalsifiable unmeasurable woo-woo.

An hypothesis that cannot be falsified does not count as a scientific theory (according to Popper, not everyone agrees). That does not mean that is woo. It just means that it's outside the epistemological limits of science.

Another thing that is unmeasurable is science, and yet most people don't doubt it.

> The singularity and AGI are apocalypse for atheists.

I agree with that to a degree.

> It was quality content and services, subsidized by investors

You're joking about the "quality content" part, right?

> And there's nothing preventing Google from leveraging Youtube/Gmail/Search to push out other browsers which have tracking protection.

Nothing except antitrust laws...

It's a shame they won't revert the idiotic decision to ban adult content. The sense of freedom of expression and unrestrained creativity gave Tumblr its edge. Without it, it's just another boring blog engine, and this is just a matter of postponing its demise.

> Uh huh. I'll remember that the next time a ton of bricks falls on my head when passing a construction site.

Was it a common occurrence in the US, that construction workers would cause accidents because of smoking cannabis? And btw, do you know of any study showing a negative correlation between drug testing and accidents? Or is this more "lie detector"-style "science" -- an excuse to stick your nose in other people's private affairs?

> Do you have any reason to believe this is an actual, honest to God, widespread problem?

Yes, my professional experience. American workers seem to find intrusive practices such as drug testing perfectly normal, exactly in the way that you are expressing. In Europe, such tests are much more regulated, as well as many other forms of abuse of power by the employer, and yet I never had any problems with bricks falling over my head.

Yes, and a bunch of harder drugs that destroy lives and are much more dangerous than cannabis, but perfectly fine because some big corp is making billions selling it.

No security implications there. Of course, by security, it is meant "security against lawsuits". Actual human beings don't really matter in this equation.

"Safety and insurance implications" are an infinite excuse for employers to abuse you unless you have a legal system to protect you from asymmetrical power relationships.

No, I am saying that the US isn't the land of the free because, in practice, you seem to live under immense scrutiny and oppression when compared to other western countries. No privacy over even your own body, no job security, no health care without a job, no holidays.

The land of the free: now with mandatory drugs testing at work.

> I think what precludes the final victory of open source is that the world itself changed for the better.

Maybe we don't live in the same world???

> The mobile and web revolution brought easy to use software into the hands of billions.

Yes, but this software is not empowering the users, it is controlling them, isolating them, radicalizing them and making them feel more depressed.

I agree. Unfortunately, I have the impression it is already going in the downwards trajectory. The new redesign contains all the red flags. When "old.reddit.com" stops working, I suspect it's over for me.

> I don't know what you mean by "suspicious."

I mean that, maybe you should distrust your own judgement that "HN is the only reasonable discussion forum remaining on the internet". Perhaps other places have environments that you don't like but other people feel that they are "the only reasonable discussion forum remaining on the internet".

> I'm part of a ton of other forums and communities, and over time almost all of them have devolved into complete and utter dogshit, just an endless stream of memes and screenshots of Twitter posts.

In my experience this has a lot more to do with algorithmic instead of chronological ordering. Facebook for example, where a lot of communities have gone to die, is a context-destroying engine. Only memes and shitposts can survive. What is the point of writing something thoughtful if you don't know if anyone will even see it?

Otherwise, online communities have a lifetime. Before HN there was Slashdot and Kuro5hin. They were nice at some point, then devolved into shit. Same thing will happen to HN and everything else, of course.

> The communities that remain successful either have total strict moderation or a "shitposts" section where all of the garbage ends up, but even then the quarantine zone ends up sucking up a lot of the forum energy. I think it's best to just not have it at all.

My favorite community uses a completely different strategy: there are no moderators but it is relatively obscure. Shit posters come and go, nobody reacts, all is fine. It has been going on for more than two decades. I will not disclose it because I do not want to ruin it, but I bet lots of things like this exist. They don't make money nor are they advertising arms of money-making operations, so nobody really cares. No newspaper will ever write an editorial about them -- this is why they are so great!

> Strict moderation is the reason HN is the only reasonable discussion forum remaining on the internet.

Don't you find it a bit suspicious that the forum you happen to like is "the only reasonable discussion forum remaining on the internet"?

In theory, no. In practice, yes.

> No, you don't understand that the "you" that is the sum of your experience and history, and the "you" of a clone are different you's.

In what sense are they different? Consider that the molecules that make up a person's body are completely replaced over the course of n years. One decade ago you were a different chunk of matter, but the same person.

> Your copy is only like you, but not you.

Ok, let's assume you are right. The copy will still be 100% convinced that it is me. How do I know this is not happening to me already, that I am not a "fake" already?

> It doesn't matter if you're emulated, because the same would happen to the emulation, a fork of a emulation won't mean that the emulation would wake up in the body of the fork.

Organisms wake up and feel whatever they feel. An organism with an exact copy of my memories and processes will be 100% convinced that it is "me". This could already be happening to me, how could I tell? I am just repeating trivial arguments from an ongoing philosophical discussion that has been going on for millennia.

You propose to solve this discussion with authoritative proclamations, but I would rather read your arguments.

> What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind

>> Why? What makes you you?

> My history until now.

?

> that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long, so it's not even a good idea for conservation.

>> Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know?

> It doesn't matter.

?

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

> What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you".

Why? What makes you you? Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know?

> And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long

That can also be said of the passage of time. Every moment there are forks in the road, and whatever you are is constantly diverging from what you were -- otherwise nothing would be happening to you.

Yes, our entire civilization is built on trust relationships. Trust relationships are easier to succeed when the interests of the two parts are aligned, or at least mostly aligned.

The ad business model guarantees that our interests are misaligned. I don't want to depend on intelligent agents that want to sell me things, and I don't think anyone with half a brain would either. The more intelligent they are, the more one should fear being manipulated and spied upon if one those not control them.

> You can not have both smooth service and complete privacy if the data is restricted, as the system will not get to learn you.

Sure you can, as long as you control the system. There is nothing preventing us from realizing the old dream of having AIs dedicated to working for us, the users, not some corporation.

It just so happens that the the current favorite business model of big tech is serving us ads, but does this business model serve us? I don't think so.

> UIs are expected to reflow to devices with different screen sizes and dot pitches

> Users expect their programs to give them up-to-the-minute information from the internet, with slick animation and nuanced typography.

Do these requirements really come from the users? Or do they, in fact, come mainly from tech people? I never understood this mentality that mobile devices must be considered at all costs for all cases, and it seems to me that this mentality comes and always came from industry people, not users. I suspect this is related to three things:

- The laptop/PC market is "saturated", in the sense that it can no longer hyper-grow, so it's not so convenient to make a billion or two;

- A new zoo of careers paths has grown out of mobile and the startup era: UX designer, Product-Whatever, Growth-"Hacker", Agile Wizard, Evangelist Something etc, etc. It's very hard to convince someone of something when they salary depends on them not believing it, says the cliché but is true;

- It is more lucrative to show ads to passive consumers than to sell software to creators.*

This is a situation where the current game of Silicon Valley capitalism (copied everywhere) configures a race to the bottom in terms of the expression of human potential.

* This is why, even when you want to buy a tool, you now have to "subscribe to a service", with the loss of sense of ownership and control that comes with it.

Not really. PageRank is a centrality measure for networks, not a sociological theory / hypothesis. It is very useful in finding the most popular nodes in a network, but it says nothing about whether this popularity is byproduct of culture or the other way around.

I have no problem listening to the nuances. Please feel free to educate me, but give counter-arguments to what I wrote and spare me the clichés.

> The analogy breaks down because the fact that you may or may not have slaves doesn't change the supply and demand of the slaves.

Nothing that I said is related to the supply and demand of anything.

> When you said all information is filtered by the government, that shows your ignorance of how things work in China.

All information is potentially filtered / monitored by the government. I am well aware that people use VPNs to circumvent censorship, and that censorship itself is highly flawed. That does not change the fact that, once inside such a repressive apparatus, you cannot be certain of anything you read and you cannot feel safe in reading it. This is a country where people "disappear" for wrongthinking.

> The rest are not worth responding to.

This is the typical answer of those who have no counter-arguments.

> Any claim that Google would have helped China censor Chinese citizens ignores the fact that Chinese search engines are already censored.

So what? That does not make censorship morally acceptable. This would be the same as saying that using slave labor is ok, if you do it in a country that already accepts slavery anyway, and you are treating you slaves better.

> And by surfacing better information for queries, it can also help people finding what they want for things that are not censored.

Once the state is performing censorship there is no such thing as "better information". If all information is filtered by the government, then all information is suspicious.

> but do consider how lives of hundreds of millions of people will be affected by your actions/inactions.

I have profound sympathy for the victims of authoritarian regimes, and I absolutely do not believe that the way to help them is to collaborate with the very system that oppresses them. Pretending otherwise sounds like Newspeak to me.

> I know some people prefer to stick their noses up and hold what they perceive as the moral high ground

Maybe some people are like that, but this is unimportant. The important thing is this: you have to put your own oxygen mask on before helping others. If we in the west allow our companies to collaborate with systems that hold values that are repugnant to our own, then we will become like those systems, not the other way around. There will be nowhere to hide. No thank you.

Let's not be naive: say what you want about the Chinese government, but they are not imbeciles. If they did not perceive Dragonfly as something that would help them maintain their repressive apparatus, they would not allow it.

> The fact that Harari seems to think that everything is just a 'story' that we tell ourselves, is way too nihilistic.

I find that the great challenge that confronts our species is precisely the search for meaning.

There are myriad options for sale in the marketplace of ideas, many coming with pre-packaged meaning. This is the typical case with Judeo-Christian religions, where some external authority dictates meaning to us. But let's suppose that there really is an Anthropomorphic God in the Sky that created everything and has rules for us. Ok, good for him I guess, but you have to lack a bit of imagination to not see the absurdity of that situation. It's just a parent-child relationship, with an imaginary parent, that spares the followers the pain of confronting existential questions, provided that development remains arrested.

The same is true of Atheists and Materialists. Ok, there's only atoms. Everything can be explained as a cold mechanism that progresses from the Big Bang, through evolution, to us and all of our preferences and inclinations. Of course, given that the scientific model of reality is so useful, it is easy to forget that it is just another story when it comes to meaning.

To actually reach adulthood, I believe that one has to confront the scary reality that one is one's own source of meaning. In one sense the universe is made of atoms, in another it is made of stories. Both of these models are useful, but no model can ever spare you from the task of becoming your own source of meaning.

> I think physicists can say they proven something

Not even them. It only makes sense to talk about proof in formal domains such as math and logic.

Science proves nothing. It is impossible to prove that any given scientific theory will not be falsified in the future. In fact, physics was one of the main inspirations for the idea of "paradigm shift" by Thomas Kuhn in his famous work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

Talking about proof in science is damaging, and it conveys the wrong idea about what science actually is.

> if you don't like it you're welcome to buy a different laptop or phone

Or at least while our planet is inhabitable. 44.3 degrees today in France, the highest temperature ever recorded in that country. Free markets and design decisions are great, protecting our common environment is also not such a bad idea...

In other news: an unexplained productivity spike has been recorded today across the tech industry.

Yes, I know they are separate, but they are both shadows of a class system that is repugnant to modern western values. And although what you are saying is true, it is only the current practice. Notice that the UK has no written constitution.

It particularly astonishes me when Americans defend these costumes, given that their country was essentially created in opposition to such a class system.