Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | studentrob's comments login

> Chesterton will have to contend with our time honored tradition of tearing down fences.

The point is not to prevent teardown of fences. It's to know why they were setup in the first place. If it was put there for no reason other than to spend what's in the budget, then there is no barrier to removing it. But if it was there for good reason then you need to prepare a counter argument for why it should be removed.


Fences don’t maintain themselves, and I don’t think we should give either side a pass. The town should have a general tradition of tearing down unjustified fences and keeping documentation for the justification of fences. It shouldn’t be assumed there was a good reason, the party installing the fence should have presented an argument for the fence in the first place.

Chesterton’s argument is that we should assume there was a reason in the absence of an argument for the fence. This is only the case if there’s a proliferation of necessary, unjustified fences. We should not let that sort of situation emerge in the first place.


You don't seem to grasp the thrust of the article. Chesterton does not set up two sides. And I don't know what you mean by "necessary, unjustified fences." Those two words stand in juxtaposition. If a fence is necessary, it can be justified. If it's not necessary, it cannot be justified.


If the standard is that we maintain fences that don’t have an articulated justification, we will end up with fences that are necessary, but which don’t have an articulated justification. They may be justifiable, but without that justification articulated, we have don’t really have an easy way of telling which are justifiable.

Chesterton finds himself surrounded by fences which have no articulated justification, but which might be necessary/justifiable. This is a predicament of his own making. If he and everyone else in the town always bulldozed any fence they came across which doesn’t have a justification, people who want fences would start writing down why they’d put them there.

This would be helpful, because not only will it tell us which fences shouldn’t be torn down. It would tell us which fences we should actively maintain.


> Chesterton finds himself surrounded by fences which have no articulated justification, but which might be necessary/justifiable. This is a predicament of his own making. If he and everyone else in the town always bulldozed any fence they came across which doesn’t have a justification, people who want fences would start writing down why they’d put them there.

I think this falls down if the consequence of bulldozing a fence are high and if the original builders of the fence are no longer around.

The problem isn't Chesterton's own making. The problem Chesterton is trying to solve is when, for whatever reason, most likely due to many generations passing, the purpose of the fence isn't written down.

That also ignores the fact that some fences are built through an emergent and collaborative process, and so no one is such a co-creator to write down why it is there.


I don't think you understand Chesterton's point. It's not that hard to see it is valuable to know why things were built.

It's the same reason we study history, to know what came before us so that we can make good decisions going forward.


I think I understood Chesterton’s point, just that he is wrong. Maybe somebody will come along and present an explanation as to what I’m missing.


I don't think anyone can, since you seem to be applying mathematical rigour to a "rule of thumb".

Since "Chesterton's Fence" can not be 100% applicable to every and any situation, you are rejecting it wholesale.


Unpopular opinion: This conflicts with SV's "disrupt everything" mantra.


Of course it does. But this is nothing new. Rich young people have been doing it for centuries.

They make their short term gains that they congratulate their cleverness for, then suffer the consequences, and those that survive are the ones that re-learn the lessons of old.

But on the other hand, it's sometimes the only way to get the old method out of the way so that new efficiencies can be gained with the technologies available today. Of course most will fail, but some will survive.

Shoot first, ask questions later.


Not arguing that it's a new thing, but there is always another way.

Making the problem bigger is an interesting way to go about it. I will grant that doing so does expand the number of people impacted, and therefore the number of people interested in solving the problem is also bigger, as well, perhaps, as the apparent pay off for solving it. But ultimately, the solution is going to be something that could have been applied by the same people who expanded the size of the problem.


Chesterton's Fence doesn't conflict with disruption -- it conflicts with uneducated disruption -- disruption that doesn't understand what it's even disrupting.


> To play the devil's advocate: Is it though?

Yes. Copyright already protects what a patent granted for source code would protect.

The problem you describe exists in both scenarios, and is resolved with enforcement. You can sneakily break the law, and you run the risk of getting caught for fraud.


> Copyright already protects what a patent granted for source code would protect.

I don't think that part is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design


> Copyright already protects what a patent granted for source code would protect.

This is not correct. Patent protects the abstract functional design, copyright protects the reduction to practice. Two implementations of the same algorithm have independent copyrights.

You see the same thing in physical engineering too. A novel chemical process is protected by patent and each reduction to practice is protected by copyright. They are separately licensable.


> FYI this is the same guy who praised FTX.

I'm unfamiliar. Is there a source to this claim?


Well Binance was a partner of FTX and invested 20% in them, so I'd say they were friendly at some point.


yeah i also want to know if he's a fellow ftxbro


Wonder what Sacks will say. He was saying there should be more regulation on All In

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/all-in-with-chamath-ja...


The whole point is to not charge users twice for both the volume AND the rate of flow.

It's not hot button because there is no FCC chair. If the dems seat a chair, regardless of who it is, that would allow grassroots campaigns to reactivate.

Under Trump, I believe broadband ISPs were implementing data caps, and they backed off on that after Biden was elected. And some telecoms offer zero rated content. It's far more common overseas for telecoms and content providers to partner in providing access, so you get places like the Philippines where Facebook basically is the internet.


> I believe broadband ISPs were implementing data caps, and they backed off on that after Biden was elected.

You're welcome to believe as you wish. We've never seen data cap issues, under President Trump or Biden, or any president.


> Comcast extends delay on debuting data caps in the Northeast

> Following a multi-month suspension of its usage-based policy during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, Comcast restored and updated its data usage policies in July 2020, raising the monthly limit to 1.2 terabytes – 200 gigabytes more than the 1TB limit that was in place prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. Under the revised data plan, residential broadband customers who exceed 1.2TB of data per month are charged $10 for each additional bucket of 50GB, up to a maximum of $100 per month (Comcast's maximum data overage charge prior to the pandemic was $200). Comcast also sells a standalone unlimited data option that costs an additional $30 per month.

https://www.lightreading.com/cablevideo/comcast-extends-dela...


Are you saying that there weren't data caps being trialed? Because there very much were, and they were not generous.


I'm saying we've been with several ISP's and if any one had stopped offering unlimited access, we would have switched to a new ISP. We did switch from Spectrum to AT&T Fiber to get faster speeds up and down but otherwise Spectrum's speeds were fine and we mostly didn't have issues with them.


That’s not representative. Comcast was very actively experimenting with data caps and overage fees. And there were no very good alternatives in our area, it was them or glorified DSL.


Yes. Those are people who think they can go hands free, use their phone or watch a movie while on autopilot.


theyre also likely the same type of folks who fall for marketing like "full self driving" without investigating critically or even reading through the analog and digital shrinkwrap they have to tear through to get to their date or appointment or whatever on time.


Thank you for that context. It seems like breaches are happening every month now. What do you think needs to happen to ensure these gigantic companies secure data? I can imagine (a) new legislation enabling bigger, swifter fines or (b) anti-trust action. Do you think we should prioritize one over the other, do both, or something else?



Be aware drug trafficking is part of the culture there.


I'm from Costa Rica and I'm not aware of that, drug trafficking like what? We as other countries in the planet has issues with illegal drugs yes is true, but never in any way this has influenced into our culture.


it's part of the major drug transportation route from Colombia to Mexico though isn't it?


You mean from Colombia to the US (probably more accurate to say Peru these days)? By this logic the US has a huge drug trafficking culture which may or may not be true. Besides, I think the actual drug trafficking route at this stage (around Central Amercia) is by boat to Mexico where it is brought across the border by land (one of the many ways it is imported).


Certain parts of the US have that culture, like traders on wall street who work 100 hour weeks, yes. Part of the culture doesn't mean it's everyone. I don't know where that lands for CR, I just know someone who went there specifically for recreational use because it's decriminalized. My point was only to be aware of this potential cultural difference, and that it may not be for everyone. I'm sorry if that is hurtful to anyone. I should have said that drug use is decriminalized and accepted, which is the real difference.


what are you on about?


I know at least one person who joined a commune there and said it was part of every day life. Plus, just look it up. Drugs are "cheap and plentiful" there

https://theculturetrip.com/central-america/costa-rica/articl...


You know where drugs are cheap and plentiful? The US, Europe, London, Russia, Africa, basically everywhere. To say "Be aware drug trafficking is part of the culture there." is extremely weird and probably racist. Why are you saying that? If you think, "Oh it's central America" is that it? Costa Rica is actually not in any of the traditional drug trafficking routes (say from Peru to the US) so that line of thought just doesn't go anywhere. I've spent a lot of time in Costa Rica and I've never trafficked any drugs nor have I witnessed this cultural drug trafficking.

I imagine there is some sort of drug trafficking fiesta or holiday that I'm just constantly missing.


Clarified in another comment, what I should have said is it's decriminalized, and therefore may have a different culture around recreational use that may or may not suit everyone.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: