This is the most generic trap of all. Get good at something and then extrapolate to claim that you know how everything works. I suggest that, given the insane proliferation of valueless derivatives and ejection of human values from these systems, a more suitable conclusion might be that this is how the world dies.
Agree with the sentiment of your comment in isolation but when I went to the article to see the quoted line in context, the author isn't saying anything of the sort.
They're not taking a narrow definition of knowledge & extrapolating that once one has that specific knowledge it explains everything. Instead they're broadening the definition of "hacker" (& also invoking the idea of continuous interrogation) to describe an approach to always seeking & finding "how the world works" in any given context.
It's there three times, which is partly what triggered the comment, as it came across as something of a theme.
Certainly this article is less dogmatic that many, but I still got the sense that author was using effects like causes.
The less lazy version is to do with treating the metric as the measure. Sure, the quant revolution is in full swing, but it's a terrible way to gauge the success (or failure) of society, and is perhaps a better metric for describing detrimental human activity.
That said, I fully appreciate the author's efforts to break with convention, but I felt that the points made actually give creedence to the system that, in my view, is actively corrupting the values that might get us out of this mess
This is exactly how most on this website sound to be honest--people who got good enough in their field to convince themselves that they can speak authoritatively on some unrelated complex topic.
Which is strange, because one might expect that as someone gains expert knowledge in a particular field, they would recognize that most fields are similarly complex, require just as much nuanced knowledge as their own, and would not try to speak authoritatively on it.
An effective hacker has to be competent at social engineering as well as having a very deep understanding of software/hardware.
By the time you have accrued detailed experience of how both these technical systems and social systems work, you may be well on your way to understanding how the world works (in abstract, at any rate)?
I think the term 'social engineering' gets right to the point. We aren't machines but we have found very effective way of hacking our rewards systems so that we can manufacture demand, modify behaviour etc.
The author describes the phenomenon, but doesn't seem to see the broader picture. This is where a meta-systematic, or paradigmatic (if you're allergic to the word 'meta') perspective is needed, which transcends both social and technical systems, but appreciated how they fit into a larger scheme.
Through this lens the world is decidedly pluralistic and cannot be condensed to 'it's like X, we gotta do Y'. That can work for a personal strategy, and the author is kind enough to make some suggestions, but it's intellectual overreach to try and label the world
> I think the term 'social engineering' gets right to the point.
"Social engineering" is just dystopian newspeak for "deception, manipulation, lying, and bullshitting to get what you want". If honest language were used, maybe it wouldn't look so sexy.
Anything else that avoids immoral means is just a matter of rhetorical skill and ability to negotiate.
I don't think there's especially compelling evidence out there that the world is dying.
People have been saying that forever. Especially during downswings like we've had lately (which is somewhat minor all told).
And then the world doesn't die but they spent a bunch of time dooming instead of staying ready for the inevitable opportunities that come from things turning around.
This is super depressing, but probably on point. I agree that the article has good points.
I think the spirit that the author is trying to capture is that there is a better way. I just think that they don't go far enough. There is a tendency to arrive at a idea and believe it to be a good global model - my intention with these comments is to try and provoke a more holistic assessment of the issue, despite the fact that I think their criticism of startup culture is valid
I suppose memecoins represent a form of this, but I was really referring to financial instruments, in particular those that exist based on a derived sense of value, rather than an actual quantification of it, such as:
Stock and, to a lesser degree, commodities futures, stock index futures, currency futures, interest rate futures, index options, currency options, interest rate options, credit default swaps, total return swaps, currency forwards, interest rate forwards.
The more exotic of these, which are usually more lucractive and less well regulated, include:
derivative-based exchange-traded funds, leveraged ETFs, inverse ETFs, equity-linked notes, credit-linked notes, principal-protected notes, collateralized debt obligations, weather derivatives (yes, you read that right), catastrophe bonds (eesh) barrier options and lookback options, to name a few.
They are all mechanisms to leverage expectation and uncertainty and most rely on the quantification of risk at some level. Risk, however, is defined in terms of expected return and subject to an assessment of externalities that is, at its core, resource-blind.
My point is, it is not just about computers. It's about understanding how
the world works. The world is made up of people. As much as machines keep
society running, those machines are programmed by people--people with
managers, spouses, and children; with wants, needs, and dreams. And it is
about using that knowledge to bring about the change you want to see.
This is the most generic trap of all. Get good at something and then extrapolate to claim that you know how everything works. I suggest that, given the insane proliferation of valueless derivatives and ejection of human values from these systems, a more suitable conclusion might be that this is how the world dies.