Qom

Our goal is to help everyone achieve a better life, right? Then some people are more valuable to that goal than others. They aren't more valuable in an absolute sense (no one is) but according to our current problems they are relatively more useful. Governments are trying to spend their money in the smartest way possible. I'm saying that we should prioritize a certain type of spending over another. With enough tech, we will be able to achieve real equality that is today impossible. Once that is achieved, we can forget about tech or value of human beings. These will be problems of the past.

Circadian rhythms aren't mindsets.

Note that internet does not necessarily help education. Most people waste their time on the internet, including most of us on HN. You can have as much info available to you as you want, if you go in the wrong direction or take no real action then it will all be for naught.

Sorry just saw your strange reference to Newton as well. >You are saying technological advancement is more important >than people, and we should prioritise advancement over people... why? Why should we advance technology for technologies sake?

That's not what I said at all. On the contrary, I'm saying that if you want to help people technological progress will be vastly more efficient than anything else, and particularly aid programs. I don't care about progress for its own sake, nobody does. I'm saying that some people are objectively more valuable than others in the long term and that we should help them instead of helping huge numbers of less productive people. A single great invention could save all those people better than any amount of aid money.

That is not appropriate. I do NOT want to have to go to work at 7am, and neither do many people I know.

Yes, but who gets the better time spots? People are already pissed that time zones are based on England's time, how angry do you think they will be when they get some illogical time zone while the anglo-saxons get to keep the am in the morning and the pm in the actual afternoon?

You've got it the wrong way: with his billions and fame, he is more likely to be honest and to mock others. People will listen to him and respect no matter what he says.

Disclaimer: I am not a STEM guy so don't go calling me an elitist.

This might seem like a callous view but I think it's better to invest money on helping the scientist caste (wherever they might have been born) than to simply cure a bunch of random people. In the movie Elysium (2013), they send magic machines to help the masses, which achieves nothing since they are just as poor as before but a bit healthier. I left the movie theater feeling depressed and angry.

What we need is real technological progress. If we could for example synthesize objects or food easily à la Star Trek, we would solve poverty and inequality more efficiently than thousands of years of social programs.

Consider the fact that Isaac Newton's scientific output was worth more than 99% of the work of every other intellectual in the world in the past few centuries leading up to his birth. What's even more amazing is that Newton spent only a tiny fraction of his time doing actual science; he was obsessed with mysticism and other pseudo-scientific doctrines. So giving a billion dollars to the next Newton will be many order of magnitudes smarter than spending that same billion curing laborers. However, it's not politically correct, so I doubt it will be feasible.

People have tried building such societies many times: all have failed. The problem is that you've got ambitious humans and less ambitious ones. So how is it ridiculous to claim that a leader caste automatically appears in every situation? It doesn't have anything to do with gender or race. It's the simple fact that we are not born equal and have different abilities.

Patriotism has many definitions. Some people are more than happy to serve the US as it currently stands. Why is that so hard to understand for you? Not everyone shares the usual Hacker News anti-government stance.

A libertarian anarchy will simply lead to another hierarchy being set into place. You can't have a society where there is no ruling class. It's unnatural.

This isn't rebellion (honestly that term is used WAY too much). It's just Zuck doing a little song and dance.

I honestly find that surprising. Germany is the place in Europe where there is the most white guilt. I stayed there for a few months and experienced zero problems.

With regards to your female friend: I think what she meant by broke is that she isn't really broke, she just doesn't have enough money for the lifestyle she's accustomed to or desires.

see my reply to tghw

No. I just think it's posturing on his part. He's pretending to be something he's not, so that people see the friendly brogrammer instead of the ambitious "They trust me — dumb fucks" CEO who disregards privacy.

I like how we've totally ignored the guy's arguments due to some technicality in his post. That's Hacker News for you!

We are watching you.

I don't generally support socialism, but your statement is completely wrong. What about Scandinavia and Germany? What about worker's rights? The US itself has plenty of measures which were deemed socialist years ago[1] but are now so common that we take them for granted.

[1] Note that socialism designates a vast array of different ideologies and its meaning is continually evolving. It certainly did not mean the same thing in Steinbeck's time as it does today.

Edit: grammar

You're like a Canadian grammar Nazi: punctilious yet courteous.

What's insulting here is that Zuck is trying to keep the "hoodie-guy" image despite his unimaginable wealth. You can't have the cake and eat it.

I think that the colloquial use of the term "average" actually means the median. That's how I have seen it used, anyway.

This article is unconvincing at best. She claims that you can only look presentable on a tight budget, which is patently false. You can look classy with affordable items: it only takes a tiny bit of basic fashion knowledge and a little more money than for the K-Mart option.

I've seen plenty of people who bought brand items but used them in a vulgar or trashy way: the result was that you could immediately identify them as poor, defeating the whole purpose of the "investment".

Some researchers have outlined that poverty is debilitating and impairs decision making, but there clearly are some poor people who contribute to their own fate. Advertising is partly to blame, but most of the responsibility rests with them not to buy ludicrous products in the hope of some inchoate recognition from others. Simply accusing the "white male privileged life of the mind" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -- John Steinbeck

Although I do not actually support socialism, I think this quote is one interesting take (of many) on the problem you've outlined.

Edit: looks like someone beat me to it by one minute.

Silence, traitor!

Expanding our understanding of the universe IS part of culture since it allows us new avenues of thought. The arts and sciences were considered to be the same thing not so long ago.

I also find it highly doubtful that you do not care about the results of technology. Technology pretty much shapes our lives so you cannot plausibly pretend to be so blasé about it all. Our continued existence depends on the responsible use of powerful inventions so not caring about the results is a pretty unscientific and downright dangerous attitude anyway.

That's a rather extreme viewpoint. Don't forget that it's things like culture that make life worth living. I love technology, but I also recognize that the end goal of technological progress is to allow us to experience more culture by augmenting and facilitating our lives.

I honestly don't see how studying Ancient Greek for example is supposed to encourage cultural domination. The term "humanities" denotes a vast array of subjects.

If there is cultural domination going on, it's mostly with the mass media output of whichever country happens to be in a position of power at the time. For instance, the US have been flooding the market for a long while with their audio, video and written content thanks to their dominant economic position. Local production simply cannot compete with billion-dollar budgets. This leads to cultural intoxication in millions of minds around the world as they are exposed every day to the American way of viewing the world and American cultural norms. A humanities course, no matter how active in its propaganda, cannot possibly rival this kind of utter cultural domination.