pyoung

The problem with the original argument (if I read it correctly) is that Bostrom assumes that the "growth and expansion sensibility" is a near certainty and that lack of evidence of this type of civilization, and the fact that we exist (as compared to having previously been 'harvested'), means that life does not exist elsewhere.

However, what everyone else in this thread has been saying, is that his conclusion (that no life exists elsewhere) is wrong because there are number of other possible explanations as to why we don't see evidence of this civilization. A quick summary of some of those arguments:

1. The expansion that Bostrom assumes is inevitable is actually physically impossible at the scale he describes. 2. It is possible that we are actually a by product of that expansion (DNA being the 'self-replicating' robot). 3. The expansion is happening, but hasn't reached us yet. 4. No other civilization has reached such an advanced stage yet (it is entirely possible that our 4.5 billion years was an extremely and uniquely fast time for evolution to intelligent life) 5. Super-intelligent civilizations come to conclusions that expansion is not a productive or useful undertaking.

While it is possible that life doesn't exist elsewhere (or at least intelligent life), it is by no means the natural conclusion to Bostrom's hypothesis.

I really liked point 2. It seems to be the default assumption that we as a species should seek to increase our chances of survival by looking to colonize other planets. However it is entirely possible that our mindset may change in the future and we come to the conclusion that, even with capable technology, it is better for us to live out our existence on this planet.

I think it is a stretch to say that a country that is half as wealthy as CA is in the same ballpark. To flip this around, if you made half of my salary, I would not say that your salary is in the same ballpark as mine.

I like your point on US debt, but the US is in a unique position in that it can print money if needed. Because the odds of a default are so infinitesimally small, I don't think it warrants any discussion when considering the fate of CA's financial issues.

Greece is in trouble because it entered the EU, lost control of it's currency, and as a consequence, cannot attempt to use inflation to minimize their debt. To make matters worse, their economy is a train wreck (professional guilds, rampant tax dodging, heavy reliance on government programs) making growth in the face of austerity nearly impossible. CA has neither of these problems (A dynamic, innovative economy and a strong federal government to rely on for assistance (as compared to the relatively weak-willed EU)).

From what I have heard, that bus ride is pretty hairy. Not sure if this was in first class or not but a friend who recently went there opted for the flight. Then again he was only there for a few weeks and time was probably a bigger factor than budget.

Out of curiosity, what does the 'carcass' usually consist of? Wouldn't any leftover money go back to investors? Or does that get divided out to founders (seems like that would be a bad incentive). Or is it mostly related to the product (domains, code, etc..)?

Not to belittle your point, as it is a rather amusing anecdote, but Lady Gaga came to prominence in 2008 almost 4 years ago. In 2008, my older relatives from the rural midwest where still trying to figure out e-mail. Now, they all have facebook accounts.

It still sounds like you think of a 'typical drug user' as an addict. I think the point was that a good portion of drugs are consumed by fairly responsible, recreational users.

I find it depressing that 'voting Democratic' is used as anecdotal evidence of intellectualism. I am not disagreeing with your point, just merely pointing out how absurd it is.

While I am an ardent Democrat, I long for a day when we can have two parties that run on solid policy proposals, rather than the current "that party is batsh*t crazy, so I am voting for the other guy".

This is what has been bothering me about the proliferation of cleaning service apps targeted at the tech crowd. I have found cleaning and other menial tasks to be rather meditative. In fact one of the reasons I love working from home is that, when I hit a rut, I can go wash some dishes or vacuum a room. It is a productive way to step away from your problem, while at the same time it is not mentally demanding enough to distract you from your problem.

There is a magnitude of difference between the two. When you run a top heavy campaign to get elected and a critical project fails miserably, that falls on you. When you preside over a government that consists of a large number of relatively autonomous agencies and departments, and something goes wrong deep inside one of them, that falls on the project managers and department heads.

To provide some scale, Romney's campaign employed approximately 500 staff. The Federal government employs more than 4 million.

Generally Objectionable. I think it gets packaged with windows server and exchange server for free (or nearly free) which is probably the only reason people use it.

I disagree with you on your point on efficiency. California has had a ton of success implementing efficiency programs, and these efforts are starting to be copied by other states.

My guess is that your perception of failure is largely driven by the McMansion trend of the 90's/early 00's. While these large, suburban homes definitely consume more energy than their smaller counterparts, if it wasn't for strict codes and standards and minimum efficiency requirements for appliances, our energy situation would look much worse.

I think the lack of visibility in this industry has more to do with who the target customers are. Storage/Energy tech is primarily sold to governments, utilities, or large industrial customers. If you are a consumer app, getting a lot of press can make or break your company. Not so much with energy companies.

And to add insult to injury/starvation: the person who got to the store first probably bought 10x more food then they needed and now has a bunch of food spoiling in their non-functioning refrigerator.

There was an article on Slate that addressed the price gouging issue. The author made a lot of good points about how price gouging is a good thing in times of crises, most of which I agree with. However, in the long run, if you piss off your customers, I guess you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/10/sand...

Regarding your first point, I don't have an answer. But, for a more ironic take on the issue, please read 'Player Piano' by Vonnegut.

Regarding your second point, I addressed this in the other post, but post-scarcity economics seems to be the best 'thought experiment' as to what a future society would look like. I truly believe that we are entering an age where human labor will become obsolete. It may take a while but, its going to happen.

Totally agree. Once again, I may read too much sci-fi, but I think the end game (as it should be) to technological progress is the elimination of labor, completely. This probably won't happen in my lifetime, but assuming civilization can survive long enough, I believe it is inevitable. I can't even imagine what a society would look like under these conditions..., a post-scarcity economy would be a good starting point, I suppose.

I will definitely put that book on my 'to read' list. Very rarely have I been disappointed by an HN recommendation.

Both of those examples seem like temporary solutions at best. And robotic tech already exists that could theoretically replace humans for those tasks.

I may read too much sci-fi, but I am fully convinced that we are heading to a future where most menial, low skill tasks will soon be done by technology and robotics. We have been heading in that direction for quite some time and I don't see that changing. The end result is the near elimination of low skill jobs. This doesn't necessarily mean that people won't be able to find work, it's just that we will need to do a better job at educating them to prepare them for more high skilled labor.

I suppose I should change the language of my post to say that "manufacturing employment has been gutted", as that is what I actually meant.

You are correct, there has been a resurgence in manufacturing in the US. The issue is that these new facilities are much more autonomous then their predecessors, and they are not going to result in pre-1980 manufacturing employment levels. While output may reach record highs, employment won't.

For non-professional investors, the "so let's buy Gamestop" strategy isn't necessarily a bad strategy. Assuming you are putting the bulk of your investments in low cost index and mutual funds, using a little bit of you savings to play the market by investing in companies that you are familiar with can be productive. I've had some big hits and some big misses, but overall, my picks have matched the pace of my index/mutual funds.

That is a difficult question to answer. A good parallel to what amazon is doing to retail is what globalization did to manufacturing. As we all know, manufacturing in the US has been gutted and is now largely based in developing countries. While this is good for the consumer because products are cheaper, this also resulted in a great deal of unemployment for a certain category of workers (primarily low skill). Retail, which is also a major employment source for low skill workers, is now facing similar pressure from companies like Amazon, who employ significantly fewer people than the companies that they replace.

Ultimately, developed countries are going to have a difficult time finding good paying, reliable jobs for low skilled employees. This is an inevitable by-product of our shift to a globalized, modern economy and is one of the primary reasons why the US and Europe are struggling to keep their social safety programs solvent.

That would have definitely been the much more sustainable approach. Although I have a feeling that offering discounts of 10-15% would not have resulted in the hysteria that they originally generated and thus would have limited traction. It is one of the many ironies of their story.

I would say they are more like a funnel. And they are trying to make their funnel even bigger. They make their money by sending you to other websites and services, which is why most people don't consider them a walled garden.

I think your instincts are spot on. There was nothing wrong with the fist two ideas, it was just the third that may have crossed the line.

Talking to vendors is fine, just realize that they are probably sales oriented people (largely depends on the conference of course), so if you are trying to get them to use your service, you may be barking up the wrong tree.

You are ignoring the high demand for used bikes. I imagine a lot of people buy cheap used bikes because they now that there is a high likelihood of their bike getting stolen. Ironically, this behavior fuels the demand for the very same bikes that are getting stolen.

"Reporting people who have abnormal numbers of bikes"

There are a few well none spots in the bay area where most stolen bikes end up. The problem is it's hard to prove that these are the guys that steal the bikes, and the police don't really care that much.

Aren't things discrete at the quantum level. Couldn't that be the 'level of discreteness' of the simulation. A bit over my head here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

That would be an interesting future. Go to a bar at night (dropped off by your robocar/house). Get really drunk. Get picked up by your robocar/house. Wake up really hungover, shower, change and then walk out of your robocar/house that is parked right in front of your office. Go to work. Not sure why this was the first thing that came to my mind, but it would be pretty damn cool.

There are numerous intangible benefits to these programs beyond the success rate of the businesses. Jobs get created, technology is invented or improved, and supply chains and support networks are created or are made more efficient. While VC's might only care about the balance sheet, the government isn't in this to make money, they are in this to make our lives better.

A extremely simple analogy here would be home loans. If your home loan costs you ~4%, but you can make 10% in the stock market, than it would make no sense to pay off your home loan early, because you could use that money and invest in the stock market (a net of 6%).

I am no accountant, but in Tesla's case, it sounds like they now have a pile of money that they are going to sit on for emergencies, and that it may make sense for them to pay down this loan early with some of this cash because it reduces their liabilities (by reducing the interest they owe), whereas sitting on it nets a 0% (or near 0%) interest rate. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some political/strategic motivation for paying off the loan. Unfortunately, Solyndra has become synonymous with the loan program, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is some pressure from investors or the board to distance Tesla from the program because of that.

It is basically a chatroulette for mobile photos, with the additional creepiness factor of knowing that the people on the app are some where nearby.