I think you might be misunderstanding op's comment. "Because the amoral drive for extreme wealth doesn't stop at a certain level of wealth" is a statement that I read on its face. One does not need to reach for "conspiracy" as a way to explain the behavior of people faced with an opportunity to acquire more money: just look at the 5-6 posts making the same point in this very sub-thread. Did you miss those or did you mean to post this reply somewhere else? Money is a huge motivator for many people.
Nothing misunderstood here. Only someone seriously naïve or disingenuous would arrive at the conclusion that money is the main drive of such people who have already so much that they don't know what to do with it. Especially without proofs, as a "this can only be it!" position.
I'd rather believe wanting power for power's sake than this cartoon idea of an old duck diving into a pool of well-polished coins.
Truth is that beyond a few truly neurotic exceptions, the obscenely rich do use their money. Just not all in supercars and yachts, but also to influence what they can.
I, too, find it bothersome when people refer to an opinion written in a post and generalizes as if it were the opinion of an entire community. HN is not one person and it's incorrect to refer to it as if it is.
Haven't you seen the documentary Inside Job covering the 2008 financial crisis? "Burning it all down and starting over" is a very immature and myopic perspective and cannot be taken seriously as a workable solution. The solution is to implement regulation that, very broadly here, enacts mechanisms to make private gain for public loss something incredibly difficult to do.
There need to be checks against people in positions of great wealth, power, and influence because people cannot be trusted to self-regulate and Do the Right Thing when large sums of money are on the table. "Self-determination of a conflict of interest is itself a conflict of interest."
> cannot be taken seriously as a workable solution
... in your opinion. More regulation will just lead to more and more ineffectual bureaucracy. "More regulation" as an answer is why nothing gets built in California. "More regulation" is why the Vogtle Unit 4 in Georgia took 20 years to permit and complete, whereas the same can be done in under 5 years in China. "More regulation" is why it takes 10 years and $3 billion dollars to bring a pharmaceutical to market in the U.S.
More regulation simply empowers the parasitical lawyers to gum up the works even further. It doesn't produce better outcomes, it produces far fewer outcomes.
Burn it down. Send Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Bharat Aggarwal, Ching-Shih Chen, Carlo M. Croce, Andrew Jess Dannenberg, John Darsee, etc etc etc to prison. Start over again clean.
People who resist this idea act as if we're realizing incredible progress and all that would be lost. We aren't. Science and medicine are very, very stagnant, sclerotic, and riddled with fraud. The liberal arts are almost entirely useless (from a taxpayer's perspective).
So what is your actual meaning when you say burn it down? Fire some university president heads who've been caught or what? You're language is vague but grandiose.
The whole academic pipeline is actually quite delicate if we're talking massive disruptions, the current funding shake up is threatening to screw a whole class of graduates because PIs and Universities don't know if they'll be able to pay new graduate students so many are massively cutting back the number of admissions they're taking or skipping a year entirely. That has a knock on effect of screwing up new professors who're still setting up their labs because they can't get research started quickly to get new grants which can screw up their entire careers too. All that to find replace the word diversity or because a few high placed people faked some data?
China has been building nuclear successfully and worked out the kinks. The US basically paused all production and was trying to start over. You can't seriously blame it all on bureaucracy, when a lot of what was lost is institutional knowledge. Kind of like how your "burn it all down" approach would work for academia.
Despite how things could be structured better, in medicine and science we are making progress. Maybe we could do better, but I certainly think we could be doing much worse.
It would help further a good-faith discussion if you were first more precise in defining what you mean. Please be specific with your premise and what you would do to fix the flaws you see.
Maybe start with the part where you say "science and medicine are stagnant", therefore "we should burn it all down and start over". This is how misinterpretations and assumptions start and does not benefit mutual intellectual understanding.
The USG does in fact know how to build a website and it is intellectually lazy (so very lazy) to suggest otherwise. A high profile illustration of this is login.gov, which is SSO used across USG agencies. It's not possible to take a comment like this seriously, at all.
Elon Musk is also not an auditor. DOGE is not an auditing entity. You bring in accountants to audit. These are 20 y/o something programmers. How DOGE has been operating has been completely opaque and this lack of transparency just plays to the point that what someone says their goals are and what their actual goals are are not mutually exclusive, so no, Elon Musk shouldn't be allowed anywhere near these systems.
Are you familiar with healthcare.gov? It was a disaster. So the government let some people from the tech industry come in and help. Techies saved Obamacare and then founded an agency called USDS, who did other sites like login.gov. DOGE is basically doing what USDS pioneered, except now tech people have earned enough trust to fix the government itself, rather than just being the wiz kid who fixes their website.
Why haven't you responded to the substance of my point? Again:
> Elon Musk is also not an auditor. DOGE is not an auditing entity. You bring in accountants to audit. These are 20 y/o something programmers. How DOGE has been operating has been completely opaque and this lack of transparency just plays to the point that what someone says their goals are and what their actual goals are are not mutually exclusive, so no, Elon Musk shouldn't be allowed anywhere near these systems.
Your comments throughout this thread have a lot of baked-in assumptions (again in your reply with the bit about "tech people having earned enough trust" and reducing the whole tech industry to that of a "whiz kid who just doesn't fix websites anymore". Seriously? You really don't grasp how reductionist of a thought process this is?) and a closer examination on your behalf is warranted. Complex questions never have simple one-liner answers.
Even in this very thread there is stuff like this [0] being posted.
My baked-in assumption is that I'm assuming best intentions. I'm not claiming they'll be perfect. I'm just happy they're trying. I'm also grateful that the world's most successful man was willing to lead this cursed dangerous project. Because it must be done.
I've pinged dang on some previous threads which I'd have liked to see discussed.
He's been commenting for a few years now about being pretty much maxed out on his moderation and email capacity, and intensive posts simply cannot get the moderation that's required for substantive discussion. He (and other mods, and member flags) can clean up the worst messes account bans are fairly frequent (107 public bans in the past year: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1737783933&dateRange=custom&...>
I'd been meaning to do that check for a few weeks (I'd asked dang about ban frequency and trends, he doesn't have data handy). At least over the past five years its ... reasonably constant. How many unannounced bans occur of course I don't know.
Overall results: ban notices weren't really a thing until 2015--2016. For years up to 2014--2015 I checked for comments additionally by pg as dang wasn't moderator in early years. There may be some additional notices by sctb, in total 344 from 14 July 2016 to 16 August 2019, see: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1737752605&dateRange=all&dat...>.
*: Most of these 11 results are discussion about bans, rather than ban notices. Following 2014--2015 the pattern matches are far more often about actual ban actions.
I'll leave the authoritarianism aspect to someone else but I'll point out that the part of your comment where "he makes his money from the leisure industry, so his interests are aligned with Americans doing well and having disposable income" is not representative of his ability let alone judgement in planning/making decisions that reflect those interests. You can be in favor of something and completely botch the execution.
The PATRIOT Act was introduced by a Republican and signed into law by a Republican and had wide support from both parties. 62 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted against it in the House (there was only a single senate vote against it), and you can't have a discussion about the Patriot Act's introduction without bringing up the fact that it was enacted at the height of the post-9/11 fear. It has always been a controversial and flawed bill.
Most of today's social issues aren't about left versus right, they are about class.
I highly doubt it. Amazon doesn't need to stuff more ads into its video platform to be able to introduce another feature they can tell people in its promotionals for Prime. More ads are being introduced to Prime for nothing other than increasing the return on a revenue stream. It's not something the company ever needed to do.
I think this passing this bill would have probably been a very good idea. Not perfect, but far, very far from broken.
Edit: I'm actually not sure if we as a community gave this topic enough attention leading in the months leading up to the announcement of this decision.
That's not a tip. It's a "processing fee" assessed by credit card companies (a revenue stream). The 3% charged on top of a large purchase like a vehicle goes to the payment processing provider (the credit card company). To cover the cost of professing fees, most dealerships often offer a cash discount (meaning they will quote a lower price if paid by check).
