HN user

milkey_mouse

314 karma
Posts6
Comments160
View on HN

Ha! I practice good commit hygiene---even when no one's paying me---because it's useful to my future self, but I don't think pride in one's work (especially through importing workplace best practices) is a great reason, especially not a normative one. I think this is like the proverbial carpenter finishing the back of a drawer though no one will see it. It's done for the carpenter's sake, out of principle or mundane Calvinism, and I wouldn't begrudge a carpenter who didn't. And the latter might sell more furniture.

Thanks--you just saved me an hour or two of debugging. I thought, CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y, what more do I need to do? I should've just RTFM though: even an unpatched kernel mentions this in the help for that config option.

Computers are an inherently oppressive technology only in the same sense as any technology that isn't, like, a magical box that automatically feeds everyone on earth from thin air forever. There are certainly negative aspects to computers, some of which are touched upon in the article (my specific pet peeve is "middleman" apps like DoorDash or Uber whose sole value-add is to allow you to avoid talking to "the help" delivering your groceries, making your food, etc.). I think it's more productive to judge computers by their net "oppression", and for every Bitcoin or GrubHub there is an encrypted messaging app that stops the state from peering into an aspect our lives, an anonymity tool that lets people speak freely, or a Wikipedia. To use one facet of computing as an example, the populace in aggregate has more secrets than the government, so if each secret kept by the government via encryption adds 1 unit of oppression and each secret kept from the government via encryption subtracts 1, (theoretical, perfect) cryptography would clearly be liberatory on net.

Intellectual property makes sense to us because it's existed for our whole lives. I think it would surprise someone who'd never heard of it. If I were told I own a pogo stick but not its "bounceright", I'd be as confused as this hypothetical person.

If the free market were one entity that could coordinate and say "nobody build more housing, let's squeeze as much money from what we have already", sure, that would be pretty profitable. But if there are enough participants in the marketplace (which depends on the barriers to entry to homebuilding, like regulatory capture, knowledge, capital, and permits) one will want to undercut the others and build houses marginally cheaper than the competition until their marginal profit is zero. Having everyone agree not to build houses and keep prices high is like the "nobody snitch" outcome of a prisoner's dilemma: it's not a stable state/Nash equilibrium. At least this is what I heard in Econ 101, I'm sure I'm missing much nuance here.