Hacker News Reader

Comment by kibwen | Hacker News Reader

> I'm only objecting to the "never, ever" part of your post.

Sure, let me qualify "never, ever" as having a time horizon of "so long that anyone claiming that you, the eager investor, will see an economic return on this endeavor in your lifetime is secretly banking on breakthroughs in life extension technologies to make that statement technically correct".

View on HN

"within your natural lifespan" isn't really a qualification of "never, ever". The two are very different time frames. I think it's good that you're willing to adjust your opinions given new information, but it would be nice if you admitted that you changed your mind based on what MatrixMan said instead of acting like "within your natural lifespan" was your original intent.

Every prediction about the future--this one, every other one ever made, and every other one that will ever be made--is implictly made under the assumption that if the prediction lies beyond the predictor's lifespan, then the predictor will not be in a position to care one whit about the veracity of the prediction when that time comes. My clarification isn't at all motivated based on what the parent commenter said (I find the construction of a skyhook approximately as likely as the construction of a space elevator, which is to say, it will "never, ever" happen), but rather as an explicit clarification of the aforementioned implicit assumption.

My trouble with this definition of never ever is that it prevents us from starting on endeavors that may take a long time--a self fulfilling prophecy.

We may never ever mitigate our climate concerns, which obfuscates that it is a choice we'll have made, not an inevitability.

Why does it matter whether their caring about whether their prediction is correct, is done at the time that their prediction is about?

What would you say to someone who claims that "never" obviously means "not before the end of this quarter, cause who could possibly care about anything beyond that"?

Or alternatively, they was using hyperbole as a rhetorical device.

If you read the comment sympathetically, it is definitely possible to infer that was their original intent. In fact, i think its the most reasonable interpretation.

Why does the time horizon matter? Imagine I own an immortal goose that lays a golden egg every 100 years. I may not live to see an egg but I can sell the goose based on the expected future payout. A bank could invent some financial instrument that pays me 1/100th of a golden egg every year for a fee.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com