Hacker News Reader

Comment by soared | Hacker News Reader

I don’t see how this could ever be legitimate. Giving out an unlaunched shitcoin and a t shirt in exchange for the biometric data of people who very clearly don’t understand crypto or biometric data (read: random person in a mall, regardless of country). This is pretty clearly taking advantage of people.

My question is, couldn’t you do this fairly without even spending that much money? Say you need 5MM scans to build your database (that you’re going to delete the data from anyway). With shitcoins it’s close to free, but you had to pay a bunch of engineers and marketers. Why not give each person $5 USD converted to their local currency? For $25MM you are actually having a positive impact, don’t get dragged through the mud in articles like this, and it didn’t even cost that much.

View on HN

I once heard a disturbing ghost story:

Certain tech company was building a training set of faces.

Hired a contractor in $poor_region.

Contractor asks if eyes need to be open in photos.

Doesn't sound right to $tech_employee.

Asks why exactly the eyes in photos aren't open to start with?

They were taking pictures of corpses.

Contract ended.

This sounds so unlikely, unless they already had a huge set of corpse photos for another purpose.

It’s easier to find live people that’ll let you photograph them than corpses.

Lots of places will collect biometric data from the dead. If your cousin works at a funeral home taking these photos, or in the city government collecting the photos, you can basically make money for no work.

I assure you this is real.

Good data is worth it's weight in gold. I've heard stories of startups paying journalists 40/hr to write samples for nlp datasets. Imo this is not a good place to cut costs

Trying to break into AI training business for a while. I have access to tech enabled semi-skilled workers who are willing and can be fairly compensated however launching this business isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Medium and bigger companies need to work with bigger firms and require audits and certification and LLC registration in NA or Europe. And smaller companies can or willing to pay less than 5 bucks per workhour. At any scale the break even is 4 bucks because you can get the job done by semiskilled people but you need skilled people to revise and supervise.

Even though the story is highly unlikely when it comes to AI training with data you have to balance scale, legitimacy and budget. Nobody has figured that out.

It’s the same type of supply chain issues faced in minerals extraction.

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.

Give a man a homemade shitcoin and insert yourself as the transaction processor middleman, and you feed yourself in perpetuity.

Feed yourself in perpetuity and you make billions.

Because it's not about making an impact, it's performance art meant to accumulate investment money.

“Performance art” is exactly right. Likewise, it’s not a coincidence that the actual field of contemporary performance art is increasingly resembling the entrepreneurship/startup industry.

It's funny, because people tend to think performance artists are the ones full of shit... I suppose life really does imitate art.

You are right, but I think it's performance art plus narcissism and greed.

Akin to "security theatre", this is "tech startup theatre".

Stop trying to whitewash this, this is a scam, just because he was the former Kingmaker of the SV startup scene doesn't mean he isn't a scammer and this isn't a scam.

Referring to the company as analogous to security theatre is not a compliment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

it is a little “word softening” though, we might be better off calling a fig a fig

It's literally not, though. The whole point of "theatre" is to emphasize that it's not real.

If you call something "counterfeit currency", the word "counterfeit" isn't "softening", it's negating.

> My question is, couldn’t you do this fairly without even spending that much money?

It would actually cost tens of millions of dollars (if not more) if you want to comply with the securities laws of every country.

If you cannot comply with local securities laws you have no business in finance in those countries.

If you cannot comply with local restrictions on press freedom you have no business serving content to users from those countries.

Exactly. It's a circular argument to say a law is good because it's a law. And no one has any idea of financial laws in each country

Saying that Sam Altman is a scammer

This comparison would imply that securities laws are unjust because financiers are regularly targeted by authoritarian regimes.

Which is ludicrous. They aren't the underdogs here. They _are_ the powerful parties who need to be kept in check for democracy to function. A journalist publishing despite censorship is in no way comparable to wealthy promoters distributing unregulated securities.

I think what you were going for may have been that distributing these securities is in some way freedom of speech, which is also just incorrect, or correct in some way so limited as to be irrelevant. If it is freedom of speech, your freedom to distribute securities stops at scamming your neighbor's nose. But the burden of proof here is on your security _not_ being a scam, and that is because unregulated securities markets readily devolve into scam after scam.

The law isn't optional when it restrains things I don't like.

If laws forbid what you want to do, you're clearly, by definition, not in power.

The point of a nation of laws is to restrain the powerful, the powerful don't need laws to do what they want done, and the law is the only safe redress the abused have against them. Which is why unpunished abuses of the law by elites in society is so damaging in the long run, it erodes the very foundation of what it means to be a just society.

By that definition, it's hard to understand why the powerful don't just use their power to stop the legislation holding them back.

I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.

I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself.

Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?

Sure.

I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.

Such is life on the forums sometimes.

> I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.

So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously?

I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it.

That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.

"So what you're saying is..." arguments are typically fantasies about the opponents flawed inner thoughts, and not worth responding to.

And yet, here you are, responding with a vague observation, which you don't attempt to justify applies to this particular situation. On a website without notifications, you checked your threads in order to see if I had responded, in order to tell me how my fantasies weren't worth your time.

I think it's quite telling that you described us as "opponents." You aren't actually here to discuss anything, you're here to "win." That's why you're throwing out opinions you don't hold, and why you can't admit you're wrong without wrapping it in an insinuation that I am more wrong. That's why you keep responding, even if it's only to assert I'm not worth responding to.

To put my cards on the table, I care about this conversation, I care about what the truth of this matter is, and I want to either change your mind or have my mind changed. I think you care too. I think you're cloaking your ideas in a veneer of detachment to protect yourself from taking my criticism seriously. And I think that's deeply unfortunate.

Upon reflection, I acknowledge this comment was too far, and I apologize for making it.

So if I were the President, and I attempted to appoint an unqualified judge and was denied by Congress, you would argue that I don't hold power?

Power is not a binary quantity, and there isn't just one type of power.

Yes.

A power president would be able to put in unqualified judges.

Considering there was recently a president putting in unqualified judges, while the prior president couldn't put in any judges, that is a difference in their power

So, hucksters cannot be regulated because they don't hold absolute power? Indeed, we can't even talk about power differentials unless there is absolute power?

That would seem to contradict your last statement, so I'm just not sure what you are asserting here.

In a democratic society, the power of the executive is defined by law. The President is a powerful individual, but he is not a King.

By law, appointments of certain positions require explicit consent of congress.

The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. I also think that the short sighted nature of wielding this power in such a trivial and hamfisted way will ultimately backfire and result in constitutional changes down the road.

> The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid.

It's amazing the way you guys (small-d democrats) are always dressing up what is nakedly the statement that "everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy (because I say it's good for the people), but whatever I dislike is authoritarian (even if the people want it.)"

It may surprise you to learn that, historically, this is exactly how authoritarianism views itself. Even Saddam Hussein conducted polls of his popularity so he could pretend his sovereignty arose from the people. The Vichy government was legal, popular, and internationally recognized. What the law says on paper is a different thing than what is practiced, and conveniently appealing to what the paper says is a time-honored tactic of eliding inconvenient realities.

Democracy, c. 2020s: "The people must be allowed to choose, but only if what they choose is good for them, as decided by me."

I think you're stretching it to say the only definition of democracy is one where the people have selected some specific situation. This is problematic on two fronts. One is scale. The other is definitional and presupposes that democracy's only definition stems from the fact that people choose.

Democracy doesn't scale. You need representation. Which makes the question of "what do the people want" very challenging because you go through layers of representation. Definitionally it's a problem which surfaces obviously at the extreme - "if the people want an authoritarian government and they get it, does that mean that that's democracy?". You may think that's absurd yet humanity tends to favor authoritarianism in groups, particularly in moments of crisis and/or being swayed via propaganda (see Julias Ceaser).

I think the nuance that's missing is that you can have objective definitions and measures of democracy which you have dismissed as ""everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy" when it's more nuanced.

I would like to understand what these objective definitions of democracy are. If you look at ratings and papers created by the people who (like you) suppose the very real science of democracy measuring exists, e.g. Freedom House, what am I to make of the fact that various societal and legislative attitudes towards LGBT peoples (for example) are now a key component of democracy? No country can get a full democracy score without legalizing maximally permissive attitudes towards this population.

Taking your assertion at face value, that means no full and true democracy has ever existed prior to ~2010. Is that what you believe? Because even the then-believed-to-be freest countries of the 80s were probably quite regressive on gay rights.

You would have to believe that, because otherwise "democracy" seems to mean "all the things that good people support today," which is my point. And if that is what you believe, that only in the last 1-2 decades has a real democracy existed, then you must also believe that it's possible that the science of democracy measuring will discover in the future that the True Democracy is even more democratic than what we have today. It's not clear to me how this is any different from "everything I like is democracy," where "what I like" is increasingly progressive policies.

Why are gay rights apparently part of the canonical definition of democracy and not firearms ownership, which directly empowers people to resist tyranny? How can you explain this by appealing to universal principles, instead of simply reiterating liberal orthodoxy? I don't see a way.

Gay rights may not have explicitly persued by democracies of old. But modern democratic values implies at the very least: freedom of expression equality under law and other values which may imply a different attitude regarding what gays can and can't do. Gays have been opressed for a long time. There's some momentum for this type of a sociatal attitudes and norms. So granted democracies have changed and evolved but the idea of gay rights is not an antithesis for democracy.

So in a society that sees gays as people, it's not a large leap to consider gay rights as part of a evolving definition of democracy. Same as all western "democracies" took time to let women rights be a thing. Will you argue that a contemporary democracy which doesn't give women a right to vote is a democracy? If not, then how is gay rights different?

What will stop pedophiles (as an example, not associating them with gays) from gaining the same rights and recognition? Or do you suppose that, if that happens, it must be that society has "discovered" that these rights are also part of democracy?

In other words, is there a limiting principle that you're appealing to?

And why do you suppose that the right of people directly to be armed, and therefore resist tyranny and remain governed only democratically, never figures into these democracy scores?

I think you put words in my mouth and strawmanned it to an extreme degree and then argued with the strawman. A black and white view isn't helpful nor is it one I ascribe to. I think there are objective qualitative criteria of democratic values (which themselves aren't unidemensional and may be in opposition of each other at times). Can you actually numerically ascribe a single democratic value that can be used to objectively compare countries? I think that part is mostly silly. Not sure why you're grouping my views with Freedom House as it's not a thing I brought up. I might agree with them on some things and disagree on others. I don't have that much knowledge about them.

I think statistics can be certainly be used to be illustrative. For example, having a 7x higher incarceration rate than Canada might imply that on some level USA has a larger problem than Canada on this democracy level. Specifically, the US disenfranchises people while in prison and frequently keeps them disenfranchised afterward. I'd say it's pretty non-controversial to say that metrics around the percentage of the population living within the country that is enfranchised is a measure of one aspect of democracy (which means that most countries fail on this metric of letting non-citizens vote). Another might be whether citizens believe that an election result was free and fair (in addition to actually trying to find any evidence that it wasn't). A more democratic country would probably engender more good will and faith from its constituents vs one where the population believe that it only paid lip service to the idea.

Anyway, that's all I'll say on this as I'm done talking with someone engaging in bad faith tactics.

I think history illustrates vividly that when democratic power is watered down by other means of power, the end result is bad for the people as a whole.

Democracy in 2020 in the United States looked more like 1890 than 1980. That’s not good for anyone.

And the regressive elements I reference exist by peddling fear and anger without addressing the source of the grievance or the problem faced. Someday, the people in places like Kansas will figure it out. In the meantime, folks will feast on the bread and circus of “LGBTQ”, or whatever is being served up by the outrage of the month club.

Ok, I am not looking for an argument but based on this response, I don't think you understand the critique at all. You keep using these words like democratic power, and it's not clear to me that you mean anything other than "things I like."

This is why the Founders (in America) made it clear that the human rights have an ontological basis that transcends any law (rights are granted by God, whatever that means to you).

Rights that are granted by laws are not rights at all, which is why the proper understanding of human rights is that they can neither be granted nor taken away by any human law, as any law that would do so is just a coercive force belonging to whoever happens to be in power at the time.

The Anti-Federalists were so concerned to make this clear that they even viewed enumerating basic rights in the Bill of Rights as dangerous / likely to be interpreted as exhaustive vs. transcendent, which is exactly what has happened over time, of course.

This is actually my favorite comment of the year.

Pardon the ignorant question, but what did you study to learn this? My midwestern education completely failed me here. I'd like to read whatever it is you read.

Thank you. :)

Man, I wish I had a simple answer for you, it's basically what I've pieced together over the years by trying to fill in the gaps in my own midwestern education.

A lot of it, I did pick up by digging into the history the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers themselves, as well as various readings on the Founders / framing of the Constitution. If I think of anything specific I can point to, I'll follow back up here.

Thank you. Honestly, any starting point whatsoever would be extremely helpful. That's the thing that's prevented me from ever seriously diving in, mostly because life makes so little time for it. But I can make the time now.

I find it worthwhile to re-read the Declaration of Independence from time to time, even more so than the US Constitution (for some of the reasons mentioned above).

The Anti-Federalist Papers aren't necessarily easy to breeze through, but definitely worth reading: https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Papers-Dover-Thrift-E...

They can also be found in audio format here, and elsewhere: https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/q3qhq-50128/The-Anti-...

The real mindset change happened, for me, when I saw that coercion in society is THE enemy. All actions and interactions should be voluntary. It's when those lines are crossed that crimes and evil occur. Everything flows from that, in my opinion.

The problem is that the creator isn’t very responsive to requests for clarification.

Without writing down what our natural rights are in a way that is understandable, you’re stuck trying to reconcile religious beliefs. How do you deal with an individual who believes that people of African descent we designated by the creator as less than human?

We deal with this today in other contexts. Ambiguity and conviction don’t mix well.

That was basically the debate that occurred, the risk of not writing them down was also very large for the reasons you mention. It’s only a problem if that list is then viewed as a) what defines those rights and / or b) is an exhaustive list. Unfortunately, that is what tends to happen over time, hence the need for constant pushback on people who attempt such shenanigans.

As far as your other question, it comes back to coercion vs those rights. If some jackass wants to believe that, I can’t change those beliefs. But I can certainly support the right of self-defense or shared defense of the intended victim if that ideology is used to attack them.

It's a complex issue for sure. There was a time where I was more drawn to being against the list.

But... when you look at how the world turns, and that Jim Crow was legal well into my parents lifetime, and that some individuals fight against things like privacy rights in pursuit of their own agenda and others fight for universal payments under the guise of "general welfare", the scope provided by a written list seems like the pragmatic choice.

Right, the pragmatic approach is fine as long as the ontological basis of rights is maintained in the culture.

This is why, in debate, i prefer not to use the word law and instead refer to them are "regulation"

Regulation is generated by those in power and largely

The law comes from the constitution alone.

What kind of excuse is that?

That’s like saying it would cost tens of millions of dollars to comply with health regulations in different countries when you sell foodstuff. Yes, of course!

Maybe electric automobile mfgs can just ship cars all over the world without going through safety standards too!

What kind of excuse is that?

The standard Silicon Valley Ethos excuse.

Which is what a lot of these "self-made men" have and built their careers and fortunes on.

The internet and electronic commerce needed some breathing room during its nascent period, but now that its self-sufficient and does not need these kinds of allowances to survive, it's time they get rolled in to existing oversight or the .gov rollout a new Administration/Commission, etc. to govern these new areas of the economy to ensure it's not a free for all.

The question was literally "couldn't you do this without spending a ton of money?". Why isn't saying "no, it'll cost a lot of money" a valid answer?

> I don’t see how this could ever be legitimate. Giving out an unlaunched shitcoin and a t shirt in exchange for the biometric data of people who very clearly don’t understand crypto or biometric data (read: random person in a mall, regardless of country). This is pretty clearly taking advantage of people.

Welcome to the business model of those who want to align their old business models of 'web2' with this re-packed new thing (but not really) and call it 'web3,' which is totally not a scam and not their to sell your data.

Altman is the typical Valley trope tat Silicon Valley lambasted, and showed to be a hypocrite of the worst kind: those that sell an image of and 'making the world a better place' with insert inane startup name (Worldcoin, really?) attached to some pernicious data mining business model.

Honestly, YC may still have tons of capital and some cache in the Valley, but outside of it, especially if you've actually been in the Bitcoin community you will see Altman's work for the same type of ICO scam that it is. And like most of these guys they're transplants to CA, which is no surprise. I really wish they'd stop trying to cling on to our disruptive culture, and perverting it with their headlong greed.

Is he still CEO of OpenAI? At this point I'd consider it equally as scammy as this project.

Honestly, I'm just wondering if they're going to hire Carlos Matos [0] for this shitcoin, too.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5nyQmaq4k4

Why does everyone devolve into the same 'X entity is nefarious and they are trying to build a database to sell' or for x machine learning.

Thats not what this is about. It's about identity. How do you prove identity of a wallet and ensure that this is my only one? Say i want to do an airdrop but only to real people? This technology solves the identity problem in a secure way. It's just a hash of my retina data, proves this is my wallet and is based on unique retina data. Also with ZK Snarks, they don't know anything about that bio data.

But crypto is an adversarial network, so i don't see this solution working on it's own. I know biometric data is intrisically secure but is also intrincicly arbitrary. So, this data could be spoofed and will create this constant cat and mouse game where the parameters for verification are adjusted, creating centralization. But they are on the right path.

They’re “devolving” because that’s exactly what the article says WorldCoin is doing:

> But the company still has not committed to a timeline, even though it has captured and stored almost a half million iris scans to train its algorithms.

> But they are on the right path.

The right path to what, exactly? Is there any remotely plausible sequence of events where this evolves into a positive contribution to the world rather than a way for a couple billionaires to role-play as, well, whatever they are role-playing here?

I like playing around in the crypto space. I always have. Using ZK-Snarks with biodata allows you to verify, profit and protect your data. Instead of handing it to some entity to do god knows with. I give it to apple and their database isn't just a hash, it's full and open catalouging with all my other data taken from the the many sensors in the phone and products.

Worldcoin's vision is a positive contribution to my life and many people i know who also enjoy playing around in the crypto space. People are adults, let them be adults and make their own decisions. & stop bashing the crypto-autists like me who enjoy playing in the cryptoverse, for the only reason that it's wierd and different.

>I know biometric data is intrisically secure.

I work in security (at a crypto/web3 company!) and the opposite line of thought prevails in the field, most security experts argue that biometric data is fundamentally insecure especially for auth. A quick google search shows a lot of research backing that, from universities to major tech companies.

>Using ZK-Snarks with biodata allows you to verify, profit and protect your data. Instead of handing it to some entity to do god knows with.

How is this going to happen exactly? The requesting entity, like a doctor, asks for medical history. I use my retina to verify, and thanks to ZK-Snarks they have no knowledge of my retina data. How are they going to get the blood pressure readings? They need the data to analyze and understand. And what stops them from saving it in their own DB?

Similar with many of these web3 products. Think, uniswap or defisaver. Ok you can use ZK to auth, they have no idea what wallet address is connected. But as soon as you use it they know exactly who and what you transferred and traded, all stored in a DB.

"Worldcoin says it eventually wants to erase the iris images to protect the privacy of those who sign up for its currency. If perfected, the company says the technology will distill the image of each set of irises into a unique string of letters and numbers, called an iris-hash, to be stored in Worldcoin’s database. As the company’s data consent form states, data gathered by the Orb will be used for “purposes such as training of our neural network for the recognition of human irises.”"

Eventually. If perfected. "Will."

That doesn't change the fact that you will most likely be able to take someone's iris-hash and then associate their transaction history with that hash.

At least Bitcoin has pseudonymity.

Imagine a world where everyone on earth start with the same amount of coins, not based on how many gpu are mining for you or how early you are in the pyramidal game.

Will probably end up with some people holding most of the value anyway, but at least you start equally.

I see the appeal of this, but don't understand how anything like Worldcoin would be able to achieve that. People already have wealth accumulated in the real world, and there's no reason giving everyone an equal amount of a cryptocurrency would suddenly place everyone in an equal starting position.

OK I imagined it. Everyone in the world now has some number of digital “coins” tallied in some kind of system created by a bunch of Bohemian Grove type billionaires.

Now what?

Something similar happened around the fall of the Soviet Union.

Yelstin gave every Russian citizen a certificate worth 10,000 rubbles to buy shares in state owned enterprises that were being privatized.

Those with ready cash bought the certificates from those without, and this led to the current oligopoly.

> Will probably end up with some people holding most of the value anyway

Yes, exactly. It's an entirely pointless exercise because it doesn't take place in a vacuum. A "great reset" is pointless regardless of your particular aims because the world is the way it is for a reason.

Imagine a world where everyone on Earth has their iris scans recorded by a Silicon Valley company in return for a voucher for a small amount of a cryptocoin that doesn't actually exist and may never have any value at all, much less its stated $20.

Having reliable personal identities would enable some interesting stuff, like inflation-funded basic income, reputations, and loans without collateral. But I don't really think having a central actor collect biometrics is a good or safe way to achieve it.

> Having reliable personal identities would enable some interesting stuff, like inflation-funded basic income, reputations, and loans without collateral

In a way that, like, say passports, have never done?

> and loans without collateral

Here's my US passport, a drivers license, a picture of my home, some tax records, and you can verify all of this beyond a reasonable doubt via the various credit reporting agencies. Now hand my my $100k please. Oh BTW I don't actually have any money in the bank and I have no income and etc so you're never going to see me again and good luck collecting anything.

> Why does everyone devolve into the same 'X entity is nefarious and they are trying to build a database to sell' or for x machine learning.

Because there's many recent examples of companies building databases to sell and a lot of companies are harvesting data for machine learning? I'm sorry if I'm coming across as glib or rude, but these aren't theoretical exploits. This company has apparently collected data on hundreds of thousands of people and raised millions of dollars; I don't think they deserve a ton of benefit of the doubt.

Edit: changed "long history" to "many recent examples"

I don't think you are sounding glib or rude. In fact, the person you replied to sounds naive to me. It's great to go through life only looking for the positives, but if you don't look out for how the thing can be gamed then it is pretty much guaranteed to be gamed.

Glad to hear it! My initial reaction was quite harsh and I guess I was afraid that would bleed into my comment.

"Why does everyone devolve into the same 'X entity is nefarious and they are trying to build a database to sell' or for x machine learning."

Because "building a database of biometric information in a nefarious manner" is exactly what they are doing.

"How do you prove identity of a wallet and ensure that this is my only one? Say i want to do an airdrop but only to real people? This technology solves the identity problem in a secure way. It's just a hash of my retina data, proves this is my wallet and is based on unique retina data. Also with ZK Snarks, they don't know anything about that bio data."

They are on the right path to build a database of biometric data. All the rest of this is handwaving and dreams.

>Why does everyone devolve into the same 'X entity is nefarious and they are trying to build a database to sell' or for x machine learning. Thats not what this is about. It's about identity.

Because all collected data is eventually sold. First you try to sell access to the data. If that doesn't work, then you sell the data itself.

No one wants this crypto/nft/web3 world except rent seekers.

It's not an unlaunched shitcoin. There is already a cryptocurrency called Worldcoin. This is actually a plain scam.

Giving real money escalates the fraud potential (as noted in the article - the frauds reduced when they switched away from BTC).

Mirror neurons and nostalgia for a particular modal.

When a mind latches onto a modal for problem solving, every problem is a nail.

Technocrats have to try and illustrate the value of their technocratic solutions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com