> If it can't be _your_ currency let it at least be a currency no other nation controls
At that point just hoard resources. Holding a bunch of Bitcoin in a crisis is useless for a country if no other country will buy them off you in exchange for tradeable hard currency.
"just hoard resources" really has nothing to do with a world currency to replace the dollar, which is what we are talking about here. In a crisis you can't eat dollars, gold, oil, or bitcoin, so yeah, you kinda have a point, but an orthogonal one.
> In a crisis you can't eat dollars, gold, oil, or bitcoin
But you can easily trade dollars for stuff Americans will sell you. That's the advantage of a national backer. In a crisis, they'll welcome the influx of capital in exchange for goods and services. Precisely what you need it you want to spend it.
This is why sanctions fuck up reserve calculations. If, in a crisis, America will sanction you, you might as well have held gold or Bitcoin.
You are right. My point is that if you have international trade of even mild complexity, having a currency is very convenient so trade will end up being denominated in one. No reason it can't be some crypto that is not backed by any nation.
> No reason it can't be some crypto that is not backed by any nation
There is a great reason: a state-backed currency should always be accepted by that state. If the world is in crisis, you may wind up stuck with your Bitcoins.
> thought we were talking about World reserve currency here i.e. international trade
Yes. If you're a random country, you can use your dollars to buy shit from America. Countries hold reserves for basically two direct reasons: to intervene in FX markes and protect their imports. The latter is the main one. At the end of the day, your ideal reserve composition matches your import portfolio because you want currency you can send to the people who are selling you shit.
Is it a conspiracy theory that Bitcoin was developed by the US military as a hedge against US dollar hyperinflation? I've heard that argument made somewhere but maybe it was just a rumor to try to legitimize Bitcoin?
> Is it a conspiracy theory that Bitcoin was developed by the US military as a hedge against US dollar hyperinflation?
Yes, none of that makes an iota of sense. If a military wants to take inflation into its own hands, it has far-better options. From hoarding to, you know, taking shit.
Not true. Some, like myself, love the idea of the shining city on the hill, although we often find the behavior of the actual city less than shining.
I would like for the US to continue being a beacon of freedom where people can come and build great lives.
But that is not the direction we are going, and one might reasonably forecast that no country can maintain indefinite dominance. Paul Kennedy wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" almost 40 years ago. Regression to the mean and all that, but also, great powers tend to overstep.
> Not true. Some, like myself, love the idea of the shining city on the hill, although we often find the behavior of the actual city less than shining.
Your first sentence says "not true". Your second sentence says "true".
Your dislike of the current US regime/behavior causes you to forcast the decline of US influence. I'm not saying you should like current US behavior, just that there isn't good evidence for any decline.
These things are hard to predict. The most likely situation is not decline: it is continuity, where the US retains its global influence for the time being.
Ignores the totally exceptional nature of some of the US changes/instabilities of this administration. I say "not true" because that is my read of where things are going, regardless of preferences.
Yep, and nobody ever goes on these types of threads and says the EU is collapsing, even though there's demonstrable evidence that things are not going great for the EU (the UK left, there is virtually zero economic dynamism or tech investment, Russia has seized 1/3 of Ukraine who was trying to join the EU, and the continent has no money, no navies and terrible demographics to compete globally in the next century). People gloss over issues about the EU because it aligns more closely with their political beliefs.
I'm gradually tuning out Hacker News, because it persistently tries to ignore the politics that are destroying the United States and freedom of enquiry.
There is a dead comment below that tries to raise an argument but was killed instead. This is no longer a place to go to discuss ideas.
Given sufficient historical context, this should not be surprising; Paul Graham's influence on Hacker News is foundational, as he created the platform to foster an intellectual community, personally shaping its culture, design, and moderation policies.
"I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan."
You’re right, and I agree wholeheartedly: academics absolutely do have fruitful arguments about religion and politics.
I read Graham’s point as narrower than “there’s nothing to learn.” He explicitly says: “There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers.”
The warning label is about identity capture. Once a view becomes part of who you are, the odds of real updating drop: “people can never have a fruitful argument about something that’s part of their identity.” Or, put positively: “you can have a fruitful discussion … so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.”
So the issue isn’t the topic. It’s what happens when belief turns into a kind of badge.
Once big tech, and VC and investment firms behind them, went from “don’t be evil” to jumping in feet first into manipulating politics, that argument became at best pointless and at worst a cover to fuck around in politics and then kill discussion around it.
Billionaires are frightened by politics because it can generate revolutionary thought that threatens their mountains of gold. They think "why can't you shut up and be a good source of labor for me to extract."
I hate this kind of politicizing... it was wrong when the left was doing it to force mandatory "diversity statements" and it's wrong now when the right is forcing removal of specific course content.
Professors should be free to teach whatever they want that's relevant to their courses. Students are adults and can make up their own minds.
> I'm gradually tuning out Hacker News, because it persistently tries to ignore the politics that are destroying the United States and freedom of enquiry.
There are many places that focus on, allow, or encourage political content. Hackernews is not one of them, as by express design, it deems politics as off topic:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Professors being told they can't teach some parts of Plato in philosophy class because the ideas are too dangerous is indeed an interesting new phenomenon.
We have always discussed politics here. I agree with your point that HN shouldn't just be a forum for political content, I regularly flag posts about 'President posts insane thing on Truth Social' or 'Congressperson votes in ways people don't like,' but the intersection of economic, technological, intellectual, and political power is always going to throw up challenging ethical issues.
I think people's definition of "politics" aren't universal. And a lot of people just take all the things they don't like and say "well they're 'politicial' therefore they aren't allowed here." Using the site guidelines as their own personal eraser.
I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions.
...
Then it struck me: this is the problem with politics too. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.
Do religion and politics have something in common that explains this similarity? One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs.
> Do religion and politics have something in common that explains this similarity? One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs.
Well, even Republicans accepted that an insurrection was a bad thing:
> There is nothing patriotic about what is occurring on Capitol Hill. This is 3rd world style anti-American anarchy.
Typical paulg overgeneralization from his bubble. Just because many political opinions are legitimately debatable doesn’t mean that every opinion about every topic you call political is equally valid. That’s just silly.
I don’t see Paul acting like every opinion is equally valid when it directly affects something he cares about. He seems to happily participate in “useless” political discussions when he has a strong opinion.
My read of it isn't about if it's legitimately debatable, but if it's productively discussable (in an online setting).
Topics about someone's identity aren't things that one can easily change - and certainly not from text on a screen from some stranger on the internet.
Discussions about things that are core to someone's identity (in that setting) aren't useful.
Religion and politics in that context extend beyond one's claims about a soul or which end of the political spectrum is more soulless. Asking about how to maintain an F150 in /r/fuckcars is similarly not going to be a useful discussion since the identity of the people in that subreddit is in conflict about something that is quite legitimately discussable.
Keeping one's identity small (and topical to the subject matter at hand) given that it isn't in conflict with one's identity makes for a place that is much easier to moderate and keep a civil discussion.
One can discuss the impact of Section 174 or ZIRP without invoking politics. However, once politics (or religion) is involved in a comment everything downthread of it becomes more difficult to moderate.
So it's not the "ignoring politics" that's at issue - many topics in today's world are intimately intermingled with politics. However, discussing that politics directly makes this an environment that people tend to not want to participate in.
Turn on showdead and look at the comments in this post to see the types of things people don't want to participate in... and how much worse the site would be if those were acceptable topics.
There are many places where one can discuss those topics. Not every site has to be all things for all people. This one is thankfully one of the places where discussion on politics and the related identities doesn't happen.
I don't know what site you're thinking of that avoids politics...maybe lobste.rs? Here are some of today's top HN stories that I would certainly categorize as "discussion on politics".
There is a difference between discussing politics and political discussions. Things done by political bodies that have impact can be reasonably discussed.
Yes, DanG has written a lengthy, nuanced piece on the subject, because he has to deal with the reality that there is in fact no bright line between discussing politics and political discussion.
PaulG simply asserted that "no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid". Which is neither true, nor useful.
Also, some of us are amenable to changing our opinions when presented with strong evidence/arguments. I suppose the larger questions ("what do we want society to be like", "which values are most important to us") tend to be baked into ourselves so there's a limit to how much someone will change. However, there's examples of people leaving cults etc. and dramatically changing their opinions and personality.
> There are many places that focus on, allow, or encourage political content. Hackernews is not one of them, as by express design, it deems politics as off topic:
That's all very fine and well in theory, but it's like saying the topic of the ship taking on water is not allowed to be discussed when you're on a Star Trek cruise:
Sure: a gash in the haul doesn't cover things like Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway, but it's kind of a prerequisite that nothing is happening to hull integrity before the others topics can be entertained.
You cannot isolate technology from forces that shape and harness it. It is fine to restrict political discussion lest it overwhelm other more fruitful discussions, however burying one's head in sand while the society is being "engineered" is not the mark of a curious person.
I think you are criticizing an idea for not being a study. I think it's a reasonable and interesting idea, but at most it is something to consider, not some infallible axiom. More akin to "the Peter Principle" than a theorem.
Point 2 is... neither important nor really germane. (I don't care what engineers say, and Musk isn't an engineer anyway.) The point is that people understand their customer bases, and sell to them, and then imagine that means they understand how to succeed in the business their customers are in, and... not so.
It's basically a reminder that understanding the customer is everything. No matter how good the tech is, if you don't solve the customer's problem... they aren't buying.
Yes, when I wrote this article - I was pointing out that we seem to have missed this rather common pattern. And if you understand this pattern you can avoid some strategy mistakes.
I didn't claim that this one pattern explains all of the failures.
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think you explore it adequately. Firstly you don't even establish it's a mistake in the majority of cases - you just list some instances where it was a mistake. So "understanding this pattern" and trying to avoid strategy mistakes could be an even bigger mistake than not.
Sure, in all cases, acquiring knowledge of what the (potential) customers want is difficult. The point of the article is that vendors of layer N tend to think they know what it takes to succeed at layer N+1, but they don't, because that customer base (N+2) is different.
The other (more important, maybe) thing the article points out is that building layer N-1 turns out to be easier, because layer N is the customer and understands those needs already.
This. Actually, I would buy a cheap guitar (but not from Amazon), say $400-500, for a purpose like having one to place when visiting relatives at Christmas. But I wouldn't buy a nice guitar without inspecting and playing it.
reply