
Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME - dustinupdyke
http://time.com/5086870/bill-gates-guest-editor-time
======
thallukrish
Human race has evolved from that sub-atomic particle of star dust since eons
and reached this point where we are typing this comment. Obviously this cannot
happen without the necessary checks and balances throughout history and it
will be this way going into the future. So no need to spell doom, though the
cautious gene in us still keeps vigil.

------
codingdave
Just because the world is a better place than it was 50 years ago does not
mean it is a better place than it was 2 years ago.

~~~
dragonwriter
And even if it were a better place in some aggregate measure than 2 years ago
doesn't mean that it's better _for most people_ than it was 2 years ago, and
even if it is better for most people, it doesn't mean it's better for most
people _in some particular country, say THE USA_ , and even if it's better for
most people in your country, it doesn't mean it's better _for you_.

------
johnwheeler
Two things have always been true about human beings. One, the world is always
getting better. Two, the people living at that time think it`s getting worse.

Penn Jillette

~~~
Letmesleep69
I thought things always getting better is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Things didn't get better for hundreds of years for the native Americans when
Columbus came to America. Or after the fall of the roman empire was Europe as
good the next few hundred years? Maybe there has been a general trend up but
if the trend can drop drastically for the few years you're living in does the
general trend up make a difference?

~~~
johnwheeler
I think it’s meant to be figurative more than literal.

~~~
chickenfries
You won't even defend the quote you posted from it's most obvious criticism?

~~~
grzm
To everyone in this thread: please step back and ask yourself why you're
continuing to comment. Are you looking to be understood? To understand? To
prove or show that someone else wrong? If it's not one of the first two,
please just stop. If it _is_ one (or both! which is what it should be) of the
first two, take another step back and ask yourself what's the most
constructive way of accomplishing that goal. Right now you're all just talking
past each other, commenting at each other rather than with each other. It
doesn't matter how any one else is commenting or how wrong they are: you can
only change how you yourself do.

~~~
chickenfries
I like the quality of discussion on HN. I think we should discourage things
like posting pithy quotes from comedians. Especially if you won't even stand
behind the point you're trying to make.

And yes, I would like my perspective to be understood.

~~~
grzm
I'm glad that you're hoping to be understood. I think it's equally important
(perhaps moreso) to also to seek to understand. Steelman† your opponent:
interpret what they're saying in the most charitable way. Straw manning or
taking pot shots with short questions rarely indicates that you're also
seeking to understand or are engaging in good faith. Who knows? They may
actually have an important point, perhaps not yet fully formed, and aren't
expressing it well. And if others are doing the same, they may help you better
express your own perspective.

†
[https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man)

~~~
ABCLAW
I get that you have a pet project in attempting to create civil discussion -
that's nice and very commendable. But...

Please apply your own formula to the post you're replying to. Are you
understanding what he's telling you, or just trying to tone police?

What happens when your conversation partner is not actually interested in
having a discussion, and simply posits a position then abandons it
immediately? Is it fruitful to create a position for them? Is that a fair
burden for a responder to bear to batter down weak, fallacious, but amply
spread falsities?

~~~
grzm
I do my best to apply my own formula: after all, if I don't think it's
worthwhile to do, it would be disingenuous for me to recommend others to do
it. I think I do understand where they're coming from, which is why I built
upon that in my follow-up comment.

Re-reading my comments above, one thing I think that could be improved is the
use of "you": it's colloquial to use it to refer to a person in general as
opposed to the person you're currently responding to, and that can be misread
(perhaps even unconsciously), particularly when discussions get heated.

Do you have other recommendations as to how this might be better conveyed?
What indications do you have that I'm misreading 'chickenfries? I recognize
that whether I actually am misreading them (which is always a possibility) and
whether or not you read me as misreading them are distinct, and it's my
responsibility to do my best to reduce the likelihood of mismatch.

As for your last paragraph, ff you've determined your conversation partner is
not actually interested in having a discussion, in my opinion it's best to
just let the matter drop, which is what I recommended in my initial comment.
You're right, I don't think it's fruitful to create a position for them.
Continuing the discussion at that point just adds noise and arguably degrades
the forum. FWIW, I'll take my own advice here if I decide that my
contributions to this thread are contributing more heat than light.

~~~
ABCLAW
>in my opinion it's best to just let the matter drop

Sure, because you're focused on the quality of conversation. That's what
you're optimizing for. For others, who are interested in the quality of
available information, posting a quick rebuttal to signal to other readers
that the post in question has issues may be preferable.

I see plenty of misleading and dangerous musings about law on the forum from
people who don't know better and frankly don't care to know better; your
advice would be to walk away. Mine is to signal to individual that there is
clear and present danger in treating the post's content as factual.

You view that response as creating noise. I don't.

~~~
grzm
I agree that it's important to point out things that are actually harmful.
That quick rebuttal needs to include more than a snarky snipe, an insult, or a
statement that "No, you're wrong." If that's all that's being added, you may
as well just downvote, which is, among other things, an indication that the
comment isn't a worthwhile contribution.

To be useful and more than noise, it needs to actually rebut the point in line
or pointing to additional resources. HN is pretty good on that point: the
community is large enough that it's going to get addressed well. Quality of
conversation and quality of information needn't be at odds, and both are
addressed in the guidelines.

------
goalieca
> So why does it feel like the world is in decline

Because our environment is on the decline. Our oceans are full of plastic, our
forests are converted to farmland for cattle, pollution from electronics is
rising, and our global climate is changing for the worse.

Even optimistic areas like health care are being confounded by obesity and
malnutrition. It’s great that global health care and poverty rates are
improving. But in some of our own countries things are getting worse. There’s
a growing income inequality and an obesity epidemic. My generation may be the
first in a while to have a lower life expectancy than my parents’. Many of my
friends are feeling hopeless because their university degrees are buying them
20 hours a week at minimum wage (which has not adjusted for inflation too
well) while the cost of housing sky rockets.

~~~
johnwheeler
Yet, you write this on a Computer, which wouldnt be possible without those
fossil fuels that pushed us through the industrial revolution and onto the
technical revolution and gave us those plastics.

I think it’s crazy to assume we won’t find answers to the problems you bring
up and take a sky is falling attitude when you look at the track record of
human progress. Even though your friends are struggling to find jobs, they’re
likely living better than John D. Rockefeller did. Doesn’t excuse the problem,
but don’t take these things for granted.

~~~
dang
Many of your comments in this thread have broken the HN guidelines by being
flamebait or outright flamewar. It's one thing to express a considered point
of view and another to get into ideological mud wrestling. Please don't post
like this again.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Edit: it looks from your recent history like you've primarily been using HN
for ideological battle. That destroys what this site is supposed to be for, so
we ban accounts that do it. Please don't do it. That is also in the site
guidelines.

~~~
johnwheeler
My comment is in line with the Bill Gates article and wasn’t meant to incite
the response it got. Bill Gates wasn't trolling when he wrote the article and
neither was I. The fact that the post and my comment got flagged says
something about HN ideology and/or me expressing myself poorly.

The crux of the article was that people, the media, etc always focus on things
getting worse while the data shows they’re getting better. I agree with that.
In the future, I will be more careful in expressing myself so as not to arouse
resentment. I’ll also stop posting about BTC.

------
cvaidya1986
Because he had the TIME?

