capitalism has always moved in the direction of automation, yielding booming progress and prosperity for much of mankind. the technological comforts we have today far exceed those of a thousand years ago, no one can dispute. but at some point, if there are no more jobs due to "full automation" then the promise of capitalism bringing most people out of poverty will start to fall short. it's a real question, what do we do then? short of adapting, as we always have, i don't see any viable alternatives. OP recommending not playing at all is peak derangement divorced from reality imo
I don't see any alternatives until AI or technology can solve Cancer, or Heart disease or the major causes of death we have now.
My point being is that modern capitalist society has brought all the technology innovation we see today including the best medical technology/care we've ever had.
traveling more would inspire one to think positively of capitalism, rather than the reverse. to quote andrew carnegie roughly, the status quo has always been misery for everyone, and just recently have we begun to extricate ourselves from it. not to mention that it is sheer derangement of luxury to have plenty of funding for one's own family, and yet vocally dissuade others from taking the same steps, for some "end game theoretical" that certainly won't arrive in single digit generations
Venture Capital subsidized gig economy apps until the dinosaurs of the previous economy (taxis, delivery services if any existed?) went extinct. So what now? Wait for regulation to catch up in an opaque at-will-employment industry with no unions?
That immediately stuck out to me as well, but if the gist of the post were true, a plausible assumption is that "I put in my two weeks yesterday" is simply a lie to throw off identification.
The majority of HN participants are now, not founders themselves. Founders have to focus on signal over noise. People who are not founders focus on... whatever.
It's called Hacker News, not Founder News. It's right there in the title. Also, many of these "founders" are noise for LinkedIn . Anyone in their pajamas can start a single person LLC out of their bedroom and call themselves a "founder". Heck most don't even do that step anymore. I'm more interested with what an experienced grey beard has to say than some 20 something "founder" of some terrible, half-baked idea that was generated via an LLM.
>Founders have to focus on signal over noise. People who are not founders focus on... whatever.
This perspective seems extremely close minded, almost as if suggesting those who are not 'founders' (of silicon valley startups?) are incapable of rational thought or action.
There are many executives who have never 'founded' a VC backed company who would heartily disagree, not to mention all of the humans with other credentials who process information, make decisions and create value.
I just meant founders of any company, not necessarily SV ones. Sorry if it came off as very reductionistic, but I was trying to phrase things quickly and simply. If you're not looking for real life tips on how to build products and gain traction and stuff, then any topic is fair game. As online communities transform from niche-based places, to general purpose hangouts, the content can get watered down.
Nature (laws of physics) is agains you on this: it is in fact impossible for everyone. What is in sync for some observers can be out of sync for others (depends on where they are, i.e. gravity, and how they relatively move). See general and special relativity principle of simultaneity [1].
I think you just nerd-sniped me but I’m not convinced it’s impossible to assign a consistent ordering to events with relativistic separations.
For starters, the spacetime interval between two events IS a Lorentz invariant quantity. That could probably be used to establish a universal order for timelike separations between events. I suspect that you could use a reference clock, like a pulsar or something to act as an event against which to measure the spacetime interval to other events, and use that for ordering. Any events separated by a light-like interval are essentially simultaneous to all observers under that measure.
The problem comes for events with a space like or light like separation. In that case, the spacetime interval is still conserved, but I’m not sure how you assign order to them. Perhaps the same system works without modification, but I’m not sure.
For any space-like event you can find reference frames where things happen in different order. For the time-like situation you described the order indeed exists within the cone, which is to say that causality exists.
You can still order them with the spacetime interval compared to a reference event, even for space like separated events.
It allows for differing elements of the set to share the same value but so does using time alone. It just also allows every observer to agree on the ordering.
Bc Assigning a distance function to elements of a set is a common way to do that in fact. It doesn’t work with just a time coordinate or space coordinate, because that’s effectively a Euclidean metric.
You just have to contend with a few nonintuitive aspects but it’s not so bad.
I think you meant compared to a reference observer? Events are not really independent of observers. Consider the case in baseball where a runner and the baseman tag the base at the "same" time from opposite sides of the base. Assume they move at equal speeds. If the umpire is closer to the baseman then the baseman has tagged it first, if he is closer to the runner, then the runner has tagged it first. The "event" of "touching the base" has two possible outcomes depending on where the observer stands, and there is no "view from nowhere" or observer-free view that we can reference.
No, I mean a reference event, though you bring up an interesting subtlety. (Essentially I just mean an event that definitely happened [A particle decay, a supernova, an omnidirectional radio signal, etc] which will serve essentially as an origin point on the spacetime manifold). You are right though that technically, we need at least one observer to define the coordinates of that event initially. Once that's done however, ALL observers can order events according to the spacetime interval between any event they observe and the reference point (transformed into their coordinates) and they will ALL agree on that ordering. A "good" event here would be something that observers can compare. I think using pulsar pulses counted from some epoch is a perfectly good reference here, assuming we could communicate that omnidirectionally. The difference, as measured by the spacetime interval, between any event in any observers reference frame, and a reference event in their past lightcones is something that ALL observers that can communicate will always agree on. Observers may disagree about how many pulses have occurred since that epoch at a particular time in their coordinate time, but it doesn't matter. As long as they're comparing in spacetime intervals to a particular count on the pulsar, no disagreement will occur. i.e. the spacetime interval between the 3rd pulse and some event will always be the same since it's a lorentz invariant scalar quantity (i.e. a rank zero tensor).
Your baseball analogy has flaws: No properly defined "event" in spacetime will have dual-outcomes. The events in that case are that "a baseman tagged the base", and "a runner tagged the base". "x tagged the base first" is NOT an event, that's a comparison between events, and it's one that was done in a particular observers time coordinate, which is not the correct procedure here. No Lorentz invariant transformation between observers within the light cone will disagree that those events happened, though observers may disagree which happened first within their coordinate time.
(Note the issue of observers needing to be in the same light-cone is a superficial one. I haven't defined that precisely, but I don't need to: If observers can communicate at all, they will agree, upon communication, that an event is within their past light cone. In the context of server synchronization, this will always be true.)
What do you mean by "compete"? Surely there are diminishing returns on asking a question and getting an answer, instead of a set of search results. But the number of things that can go wrong in the experimental phase are very numerous. More bumpers equals less innovation, but is there really a big difference between 90% good with 30% problematic versus 85% good and 1% problematic?
reply