Many HN folks probably already know the etymology, but for those that aren't familiar, the word "luddite" itself comes from "English textile workers in the 19th century [who] destroyed textile machinery as a form of protest" [1]
> The group was protesting the use of machinery in a "fraudulent and deceitful manner" to get around standard labour practices.
There is a lot of similarity with modern tech companies (Uber is the canonical example) working around labor in a way that concentrates wealth. As an early form of labor fighting back against capital abusing the amplifying effect of technology, I agree with the Luddites. Learn from them, or - as described in this article - we will see their violent methods again.
I never said they didn't.
> they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress.
Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"?
Technology that benefits the few at the expense of the many is going to destroy us.
The only way around it is UBI in some form or another.
Meanwhile, UBI has many serious problems and we don't have anywhere near the level of job disruption to make it a workable solution.
I already know you won’t be convinced by what I’m saying. Just respond with your strongest counter-argument to my central point about the finite nature of human jobs, or in other words what will happen when machines can do everything we can. Just give me your strongest counter-argument about that. I will then explain why that’s wrong, and we can continue until you see that you’re wrong. I will be extremely patient about it.
If you're happy with technological change -- except for technology you don't like -- are you for or against technology?
If you're happy with free speech -- except for speech you want to ban -- are you for or against free speech?
I never said you said they didn't.
> Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"?
This is precisely what I was critizing. The statement isn't wrong, you just want to justify it. You're not correcting anything, you're defending it. You're tacking a why question onto it when all anyone said was what. They were against the new technological improvements characeristic of that time and place. That's not a common misconception simply because they had rational arguments to justify themselves.
Not all changes are for the greater good, even if we can’t imagine life otherwise now. Just as your local union rep... which doesn’t exist anymore.
I mean the South attacked Fort Sumter because they might eventually have slavery phased out. Just because they were accustomed to it doesn't mean they are justified to it forever.
“They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...
They were against anyone using technology to replace them by removing the education required to produce textiles.
Fundamentally, they were pissed off at how their years spent gaining education in an industry was made obsolete.
You know, sort of like how the coal miners went on strike because the UK was shutting down the mines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%8...
Labor used to wash our clothes. Then washing machines came along and now there are technicians of washing machines. The technicians are much fewer than the amount required to wash clothes by hand and they likely get paid a lot more. So washing machines usurp labor and concentrate wealth.
Are you against washing machines as well?
> The trouble started, the couple said, when their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac.
> "They didn’t ask us if we wanted to be part of their beta test"
We all know self-driving cars are going to be safer, but very few people would sacrifice their own loved ones to make self driving cars reality.
We may not actually want safer. We may actually want more just.
With 37,000 auto deaths last year in the U.S., what if Waymo perfected the self-driving car, such that they killed no one, but instead senseless slaughtered 1000 random people on the streets. Would they be justified?
Of course not, because even though they would have made it safer, they would have made it less just.
Just because it may be consensus doesn't make it remotely rational or right. I mean mobs lynching every suspect would ensure more people are held accountable but mean more innocents would die as well.
As for the hypothetical, I would definitely take the senseless, unpunished death of one close family member over the properly punished deaths of 37 close family members. But I agree that less extreme numbers could put me in doubt.
it is worth thinking more deeply about how insurance mediates justice.
Having personally been in an accident a while back, I feel a sense of justice from the person who struck my car, at least with respect to the finding of their fault via police investigation. I wonder how that changes if there were no driver responsible.
My sense of justice in this case arises from my belief that the other driver has confronted their mistake to a sufficient degree that it will improve their behavior to the standard I approve.
I believe with a corporation's software having caused damage, I would have little confidence that the damage they had inflicted would confront the corporation in such a way that it would improve its behavior. (Obvious anecdata from an emotionally-biased POV, but still worth it just to practice thinking about it!)
And in the face of any significant protest against the dystopian future we are being dragged into -- there will always be those making ill-informed comparisons to past historical events.
Without exception, there's always a downside to everything. Familiar pitfalls are easier to cope with than unfamiliar ones.
It's often only well after the fact -- like after you are dead and gone in many cases -- that the full scope of the cost gets recognized.
In the course of her work, Marie Curie was exposed to high levels of radiation. She had no understanding of the danger involved. We have some idea now, but it probably wasn't well understood within her lifetime.
Now, we have standard protections for handling radioactive materials. But those protections were developed at the cost of lives and much suffering.
Progress involves "Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" and all that. (IIRC) In the Bible, this was the introduction of sin and the cause of the fall from grace. I generally think if the Bible as full of excellent metaphors for general principles of this sort.
(No, I'm not up for debating the Bible, actually.)
Some programmers are some of the worst luddites out there! When compilers came in, there were programmers who insisted writing the machine language themselves was better. Then there are programmers who are just as bad because they're too much the opposite of luddites.
:-)
Pretty much all the programmers.
Just see what treatment Lisp got/gets in the industry. Programmers hate meta programming with a passion.
The key quote for me: “They didn’t ask us if we wanted to be part of their beta test,” added his wife, who helps run the business.
> The trouble started, the couple said, when their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac.
> “They said they need real-world examples, but I don’t want to be their real-world mistake,” said Mr. O’Polka, who runs his own company providing information technology to small businesses.
I can see the perspective where if you've experienced an issue like this you might see them as more than an idle threat.
More seriously, cars of any sort are dangerous to children, self-driving or not, going on a crusade against self-driving cars for nearly hitting (or actually hitting) your boy makes as much sense as the same against the normal cars where that happens every day.
So, bring on the crusades against cars.
But I don't like the phrasing 'crusades against cars', because it makes it seem like cars are the bad guys. Cars are an incredibly important underpinning of society today, and we should remember that as we innovate certain parts of society to function better without them.
We definitely want cars, and we definitely like cars. But we also like city centers that don't have cars, because it seems like that part of society functions better without them.
Whenever I argue for less regulation on something, I get told to move to Somalia. Shouldn't this work both ways?
Otherwise, no thanks, I’ll just argue for what I think is best here.
No. Ever stop to wonder if there might perhaps be a reason for that?
(That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if either NYC or Seattle comes close to what you're asking for, or will soon.)
But what’s the reason you were trying to point out?
You can stick around and speak up for your point of view, certainly, but unless you pick one of a very few places like the aforementioned NYC and Seattle, you've got a difficult case to make. You certainly won't achieve any traction in Arizona, where the events described in this article took place.
It’s patently unreasonable IMO to demand they secure individual permission anymore than Delta needs my individual permission to takeoff from the nearby airport.
I need not state this, but self driving cars pose a danger quite different from airplanes.
If his constituents disagree with their collective civilization’s decision, they should take their words to him, not their rocks and knives to mete out vigilante justice.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/tech/2018/10/...
Disclaimer: I’m not particularly bullish on self-driving cars in general; I just happen to more strongly believe in laws.
Technically correct but you'd understand if people who lived under the flight path might have some concerns, even more so if they weren't involved and/or asked as a part of the operational endorsement.
If a self-driving car runs over a kid, what happens? A faceless tech company in California might possibly face a fine, and some bad press that fades away after a few days. The fine is probably less than the amount the company set aside for paying these kinds of fines during its "beta test" on real humans.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it though.
I also think that those concerned are doing themselves no favors here. Drunken shenanigans, brandishing of firearms and blunt weapons, and vandalism make it very easy to smear them as luddite cranks who should be sidelined as quickly as possible, even if the fears are legitimate.