Readit News logoReadit News
noneckbeard commented on There's No Good Reason to Trust Blockchain Technology (2019)   wired.com/story/theres-no... · Posted by u/louwrentius
lazzlazzlazz · 6 years ago
Bruce's take can be summarized like this: with a blockchain, you're choosing to trust code and cryptography instead of a person. And when immutable code does the wrong thing, you can't trust them to fix it like you could a person.

This is a good take, and underappreciated - but there's a larger point being missed.

In high-social-trust situations, there are fewer benefits to blockchains. In low-social-trust situations, people aren't a good option. Bockchains provide an entirely new and welcome option for that scenario.

Relatedly, there are different kinds of distrust: mistakes and attacks are one, but platform risk is another that blockchains can alleviate. Putting it another way: I trust Twitter/YouTube/PayPal to generally work without issues, but I don't trust them not to change their offering in an exploitative way or become rent-seekers.

noneckbeard · 6 years ago
I believe he’s saying the opposite - that people like to think of blockchain as trust in technology, but in reality you are still trusting in people.

Any evaluation of the security of the system has to take the whole socio-technical system into account. Too many blockchain enthusiasts focus on the technology and ignore the rest.

noneckbeard commented on Forget VCs, this accelerator lets you invest directly in startups fighting Covid   wefunder.com/updates/1359... · Posted by u/johnwaldie
noneckbeard · 6 years ago
As a founder I've raised through crowdfunding multiple times. The experience is great on both the startup and the investor side, and I love that crowdfunding lets more startups get off the ground, especially ones that don't have access to SV money.

But this should really be thought of as "gambling" instead of "investing." There's very little ability to do due diligence and the companies are usually so early that it's impossible to know if it's going to work or not. However, if you have money you're willing to lose it's a lot more rewarding than spending it at the blackjack table.

noneckbeard commented on Mistakes That Kill Startups (2006)   paulgraham.com/startupmis... · Posted by u/docuru
QuadrupleA · 6 years ago
Last I checked, StackExchange was performing fine on an all-Windows platform.
noneckbeard · 6 years ago
Not saying Windows is dead, just that things seemed to work out alright for PayPal.
noneckbeard commented on Mistakes That Kill Startups (2006)   paulgraham.com/startupmis... · Posted by u/docuru
andygcook · 6 years ago
IIRC from reading the book PayPal Wars, Elon wanted to switch PayPal over to Windows because he saw it as the future. At the time, PayPal was on Unix. Max Levchin and the other main programmers didn’t want to switch. The disagreement on platform eventually came to a head and Elon was replaced by the board with Peter Thiel.

If you haven’t read PayPal Wars, it’s a great book.

noneckbeard · 6 years ago
Agreed. I think it was also a power struggle over which engineering team would be in control moving forward. Musk’s X.com was built on windows and he wanted everyone to switch over on the merge.
noneckbeard commented on Mistakes That Kill Startups (2006)   paulgraham.com/startupmis... · Posted by u/docuru
noneckbeard · 6 years ago
In the Wrong Platform section he mentions how the new PayPal CEO wanted to switch the company to Windows and “Fortunately for PayPal they switched CEOs instead.” That CEO they gave the boot? Elon Musk.

It was probably still a good decision and maybe we wouldn’t have spaceX or Tesla without that change, but still hilarious!

noneckbeard commented on Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation   citylab.com/transportatio... · Posted by u/jonbaer
asdff · 6 years ago
Pretty asinine of him to back off at that. Homeless people aren't paying fares already. There are also 60k homeless in LA while 1 million people ride ride metro a day; even if every single homeless person boarded metro one day it would be a blip on your radar compared to everyone else.

What fares hurt most are the working families in LA who pay $76 a month to ride the bus to work or school because there is no other choice. The fact that Newsom didn't connect this dot doesn't surprise me.

noneckbeard · 6 years ago
I think the argument was more that the bus system was already a pretty terrible experience, and making it more terrible would discourage even more people from taking the bus and create a downward spiral of quality.

The obvious correction is to make the bus experience less terrible, but I’m guessing that’s hard w/o increasing taxes or fares, both or which come w serious political and real world costs.

noneckbeard commented on Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation   citylab.com/transportatio... · Posted by u/jonbaer
carapace · 6 years ago
> fare collection cost as much as the revenue generated from fares

WTF!?

That's freakin insane.

If that's true, why do they keep raising the fares and upgrading the fareboxes!?

If that's true, the SF city gov is effectively collecting money and lighting it on fire as a way to "throttle" bad behaviour on the bus!?

noneckbeard · 6 years ago
Could be that they’re trying to turn fare collection into a revenue generator, but not sure. I recommend his book, it’s a pretty interesting read!
noneckbeard commented on Kansas City is first major city in U.S. to offer no-cost public transportation   citylab.com/transportatio... · Posted by u/jonbaer
noneckbeard · 6 years ago
In Gavin Newsom’s book Citizenville he talked about how, after becoming SF mayor, he discovered that fare collection cost as much as the revenue generated from fares. He started the process of making the bus free but was told by so many advisors that the busses would become “dumpsters on wheels,” from a combination of homeless people using them for shelter and people not respecting services that are free, that the plan was scrapped.
noneckbeard commented on Twitter to ban political advertising   twitter.com/jack/status/1... · Posted by u/coloneltcb
dmix · 6 years ago
One thing about the first amendment is that it doesn't have conditions. This type of thing that Twitter is doing will be full of them, ie selectively defining what's political or not.

The question is whether this is a lesser evil than allowing political ads but selectively blocking stuff with very broad and potentially inconsistent moderation rules. I personally think totally blocking is the easier of the two in terms of decision making but I expect this will generate far more false positives in the end on the fringes and grey areas.

It's a good thing we'll now have two different experiments, on a large scale, to see which one is more self-destructive.

One of the main problems that I see is the outsized influence we've given to the very-vocal but small parties on social media to have on silencing other people and groups, going well beyond the limited free speech exceptions we previously observed in society for over a century (culturally, not just legally). Neither of these approaches really addresses that problem at FB/Twitter. Which is why I'm curious which one is going to expand those grey areas, where the abuse/downside risk remains, rather than reducing it.

noneckbeard · 6 years ago
To be fair Twitter already has a lot of prohibitions in place for ads, many of them very subjective (e.g. Hateful Content and Inappropriate Content) so the free speech boat sailed a long time ago.

https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/introducti...

noneckbeard commented on Fossil fuel divestment has ‘zero’ climate impact, says Bill Gates   ft.com/content/21009e1c-d... · Posted by u/melling
paulsutter · 6 years ago
Wouldn’t it be better to reduce demand? Even just now where supply was literally taken out with missles (or were they drones?) that doesn’t affect how much fossil fuel is used. Why would divestment work any better?

To reduce demand you should either create cheaper ways to store alternative energy or make carbon based fuels more expensive with a carbon tax.

noneckbeard · 6 years ago
Can’t it be both? Those aren’t mutually exclusive, and in fact are hardly even related in terms of implementation.

And taking out supply to drive up cost of fossil fuel will absolutely have an impact. At least a few people will opt for the fuel economy version of their new car in the next few days after seeing the new sticker price of a gallon of gas.

u/noneckbeard

KarmaCake day138June 13, 2019View Original