humblefactory

My bro, you are an n of one. Anyone who learned algebra at 6 would know that something true for one case cannot be automatically extended to all cases - in fact, this single data point is almost less than worthless because it gives you the illusion of knowledge without any context.

I mean, the OP was right, this is a totally Elon thing to do.

How do you reach your first conclusion? Can you give a more detailed logical explanation, or cite a source? To be clear, I agree with your conclusion, but I think I would get there via a different logical path.

Omg, bro just stop. Please.

But why bury people's bodies at all? The whole purpose of cemeteries as physical spaces is to honor the deceased by literally sacrificing land in their memory. Without the sacrifice, why not just have virtual markers located around town and cremate or compost bodies? Obviously the answer is that some religious traditions prescribe burial, but this also answers why your original design is inadequate.

You mentioned not subscribing to socialism or communism, but it's pretty obvious that you haven't deeply considered what a functional society ought to look like through any ideological lens. Commentors below have given great advice about reframing your evaluative criteria. But you might also try learning more about these (socialism, communism) and other social organizing ideologies (anarcho-socialism, libertarianism, low-growth capitalism, etc). There is almost certainly something useful for you in this exploration. Being grumpy because speculative capitalism arbitrarily makes some people wealthy is a waste of your time - that's literally what it was built to do.

Also, remember that, like an LLM, his conception of the world is flawed, because somebody fed him polluted facts in his original training data set (I think I remember that right, I haven't watched that movie in decades).

Right. And with the current scale of infrastructure that's used, financing models, market incentives, and cost of fuel, the current density required mostly only occurs in the downtown core of cities, or in industrial parks near a power station (where the waste heat from power generation can be used to heat industrial processes like refining petroleum or cook paper pulp - sometimes this is called "co-generation"). But that's not to say it's a bad idea! You would just need to move the needle on any of those things in the list - for example, making denser homes around a lower cost heat source like a ground sources heat pump powered by solar.

Get into all the same trouble as Facebook. Stop thinking that more data is the answer. The problem is we don't know how to make ethical companies capable of dealing with the data they have. Fix that first. Please.

I think the other thing that is tied to the 1.0-2.0 evolution is that with increased user generated data (because of these uploads) the surveillance economy model for revenue exploded. In web 1.0 you really couldn't get enough information from simple search tracking for a valuable dataset, but once folks started blogging and using social media, there was a much bigger signal to monetize.

By definition, this came after the 2.0 transition, so maybe call it Web2.5?

I'm not going to spend much time on your claims, but I agree with most of your critics here that they are not well formed.

I'm a dad who decided with my partner to have our first kid, and then they turned out to be triplets. Just for context.

All of the things listed by parent below resonated with me. Here are a couple additional ones I didn't see:

1)Kids are an amazing lens through which to see the world brand new. Even spending time with a kid (not even yours) will let you discover new things your jaded grown-up brain has missed.

2)Moreover, society needs young people for this reason. As we get older we get less flexible in our thinking, less effusive in our ability to love, less hallucinatory in our creativity (all of which are important for running companies, governments, societies, etc.) Kids and teenagers (who are like kids matured in a cheese cave so their flavors and smells get more complicated) bring radicality and imagination back to society. If you're thinking about using hallucinogens to change your perspective as an older person, consider that kids/young folks basically bring this energy to the party without the drugs.

Robin Wall Kimmerer writes in "Braiding sweet grass" about how many indigenous societies around the world recognize the separate "wisdom of toddlers" and "wisdom of teens" - I feel like we need to talk about this more.

I think the OP gave a pretty good way to recognize at least some of these. But you're right that one can probably never know their own entire constellation of these assumptions.

Oh, ok, cool. Great to hear the system is working then. Keep up the good work boys.

I agree with your assessment that this idea is naïve. The sort of biases that you referred to are subtly and pervasively distributed through all of the different schematic and ideological methods that we use for choosing language. This means that your filter list would be untennably large and difficult to construct because of how broad it would be. Moreover, these sorts of biases often are based on less than liminal evaluation metrics. It's not just that hiring companies look at POC candidates and say "nope" based on a name or photo. Instead, they are drawing from pools of candidates like high-end computer science programs, which often have already done the work of exclusion all ready, because of costs or admission requirements. Or they are basing their hiring decisions on having prior experience in internships, which often don't pay enough for the high cost cities in which they are located to support folks without additional means (from parents or relatives) to manage living expenses.

Long story short, if you really want to address this problem (or implicit bias in hiring) there is actually a huge literature coming out of business schools, public administration schools, and our of corporate DEI initiatives. Software driven support for these efforts is a crucial part of moving them forward, and you should definitely spend some more of your weekends brainstorming on this!

"Surely there must be answers somewhere?" is just the sort of thing that somebody who values logical intelligences over other intelligences (i.e. HN readers) and who lives in a non-totalitarian state would say. It's possible that the only person who knows why things are is Putin. It's also possible that these events are purely emergent, and have no real logical explanation, and no real architect. Frustratingly, all things are not explainable.

Agreed with H2odragon about moving away from the term "self sufficient". If you really want to go down the road of individual resilience, then their suggestions (and moving rural) are good ones.

Another (and for the majority of folks, probably better) option is to pursue a "neighborhood self sufficiency" model. This gets around a lot of the issues of local government getting in your way, because if you get enough neighborhood buy-in, then there's more you can get away with / make happen. A good place to start is the transition towns movement, which, though it can sometimes be a little new age / hippie for folks tastes, it really is trying to tackle all the things you talked about. Good luck! Whatever you decide, share it back (here, YouTube, whatever). Humans best feature is talking to each other about how to solve problems.

Another thing that hasn't been addressed completely below is the challenge of agriculture being an activity where investment needs to be made in large chunks, at somewhat unexpencted times. The OP question implies that homesteading is like purchasing shares of stock or crypto, when as folks have mentioned here, investments tend to be things like land in 10 acre scale increments (which is a big chunk of money wherever you are) and things like equipment, seasonal labor and seed/seedling trees/breeding stock, which can be as in the thousands to tens of thousands (or much more!), depending on what your plans are. All of these costs tend to be big - maybe bigger than you have to spend from your work income that year. But they may have to be spent to participate in the season that year. Often, it doesn't make economic sense to plant 1/10 as much seed, or graft over 1/10 of your orchard, since there are some fixed costs that don't reduce. And in some cases (like combines) there just aren't good alternatives to the big guns for smaller farms - that's a reason you don't see many homesteaders growing cool ancient grain varieties, because it doesn't make economic sense to harvest them by hand, and you can't get a teeny tiny combine easily.

Obviously it's not impossible - if you can do it, do it. We need more creative, small farmers more than just about anything else (in the US especially!). But just don't think it's like going online and putting 20% of your paycheck into Coinbase.