| ▲ | radicalbyte 9 hours ago |
| There has been a change in the community here over the last decade, we've lost a lot of the hacker spirit and have a larger proportion of "chancers", people who are only in tech to "get rich quick". The legacy of ZIRP combined with The Social Network marketing. |
|
| ▲ | mmooss 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > we've lost a lot of the hacker spirit and have a larger proportion of "chancers", people who are only in tech to "get rich quick". Doesn't that describe SV in general, and big tech in particular? |
| |
| ▲ | radicalbyte 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Doesn't that describe SV in general, and big tech in particular? Absolutely! It's just that the hopeful hacker/nerd culture used to be more dominant here (slashdot had the more cynical types). Now there are a generation who don't know anything but Javascript but think that they're God's gift to programming. I can understand it as ZIRP resulted in the bar being dropped to the floor for jobs which paid SV salaries. Imagine earning that kind of money straight out of school and all you had to be able to do was implement Fizzbuzz. The hackers ARE still here as are some really amazing people but this always seems to happen with communities. The only constant is change. And without change communities die. |
|
|
| ▲ | dewey 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As this is the message board of a VC fund it's not that surprising that it doesn't only attract hackers in the original sense? |
|
| ▲ | fsckboy 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >a larger proportion of "chancers", people who are only in tech to "get rich quick" your complaint was Unassailable Hacker® jwz's complaint about HN more than 10 years ago here's a link (many on HN complain that this is NSFW https://cdn.jwz.org/images/2024/hn.png since there are rarely complaints here that anything else is NSFW, I'd suggest people feel insulted by the message) the thing that has actually changed since jwz's disgust is the site is now flooded by socialism, the antithesis of get-rich enthusiasm |
|
| ▲ | GardenLetter27 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hackers should know the government is never on your side. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Hackers should know the government is never on your side Never is naive. Hackers should understand governments are complex, dynamic and occasionally chaotic systems. Those systems can be influenced and sometimes controlled by various means. And those levers are generally available to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and motivation. | | |
| ▲ | argomo 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In addition, hackers should know government is inevitable. Even in anarchy, governments spontaneously begin to form. | | |
| ▲ | buildbot 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If I am not mistaken, the anarchist school of thought is okay with governance and even governments, but not with the concept of the state - an entity that exists to enforce governance with violence. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia I’m not 100% sure though. edit - a (vs. the) school of thought is more accurate. | | |
| ▲ | xboxnolifes 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That may be one of them, but there isn't a singular anarchist school of thought. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > there isn't a singular anarchist school of thought Would be oxymoronic if there were one. | | |
| ▲ | mc32 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Isn’t that like saying there must be as many universes as theoretical physicists can think up? Slight maybe but it could also just be one. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Isn’t that like saying there must be as many universes as theoretical physicists can think up? Schools of thought are theories. It’s saying there can be as many theoretical universes as theoretical physicists can think up. This is true for any social construct, of course. But anarchy’s nature means you get less alignment. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cess11 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The ideal of self-governance as opposed to alienated state or institutional governance is quite common in anarchist thought. Some would probably consider it foundational for the tendency. |
| |
| ▲ | gary_0 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think of anarchy as a theoretical end state, where power is perfectly distributed among each individual, but that this is less of an actually achievable condition and more of a direction to head in (and away from monarchy, where power is completely centralized). | |
| ▲ | cholantesh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nozick's libertarianism is not really an anarchist school of thought. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 1970-01-01 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yep. The FBI swings from lawful good to lawful evil on a case by case basis. Trusting them is dangerous, but a world where they can be ignored is more dangerous. | |
| ▲ | cess11 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, the naive position is to assume that the state is on your side because you occasionally gain something from it. | |
| ▲ | HardCodedBias 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Hackers should understand governments are complex, dynamic and occasionally chaotic systems" No. Hackers should understand that government is force. This is the definition of government. And force is the antithesis of the hacker ethos. |
| |
| ▲ | layer8 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Growth hackers aim for regulatory capture. | |
| ▲ | palata 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In a democracy, the government is its citizen. It sucks when you disagree with the majority of the voters, of course. But it's wrong to say that the government is against the majority of the voters: it was elected by them. | | | |
| ▲ | NalNezumi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A hacker should probably know that it's usually trade offs and blanket statements are very useless. Certain tools are good for certain tasks and situations, but bad for others. No free lunch and all that. If you make that blanket statement, you're definitely not a hacker (or just a novice). But you'd make a heck of a politician or tech bro salesman | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | purple_turtle 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That is an absolute nonsense. At minimum, government will be useful as defence against worse government. I know that some anarchist had dream of a stateless world, but it is not viable. And while I am not going to say that any government is ideal, many are better than USSR, Third Reich or Cambodia under Pol Pot. | |
| ▲ | vkou 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Neither are the billionaires and their deputies who both own and run all the megacorps. 99% of the current AI push is entirely anti-hacker ethos. It is a race to consolidate control of the world's computing and its economic surplus to ~5 organizations. A few people do interesting stuff on the edges of this, but the rest of the work in it is anathema to hacker values. | | |
| ▲ | arbol 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The client ai push has also enabled people to run local llama models and build products without those companies. Presumably there'll be more of this to come | | |
| ▲ | vkou 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the 1%. It's the hair on the back of the elephant. Their capabilities will fall further and further behind models that need a billion dollars to train, and a supercomputer to run. You're making a faustian bargain. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | antoniojtorres 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| True that. I went to a building in SF that dedicated floor space to every adjacent field like robotics, AI, crypto, etc. Zero hacking or even cyber related space. It made me feel kinda sad for a few days. |
|
| ▲ | pipes 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the last few years I think sentiment on hacker news has shifted from libertarian leaning to much mored left leaning. The same happened on Reddit a few years before. Anyway, just my gut feeling, nothing scientific. |
| |
| ▲ | radicalbyte 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I find it really hard to classify myself. I've always called myself a "libertarian" - I believe the best strategy to Civilization is to maximise freedom for anyone. As freedom enables enlightenment an enlightenment drives progress. To actually achieve that, in the real world, means that you have to distribute and limit power. That means limiting not only government power but also corporate power. That means regulation, strong regulators (breaking monopolies), policies to keep prices down (including rent/housing!) and to enable free market competition and innovation. And provide an economic system where risks can be taken, enabled by a social let (and social healthcare). I felt that that was more common here 15 years ago before Big Tech pivoted into the cynical extractive and, in the case of the socials, net economic drag industry that it is now. The really weird thing is that my views are considered both very right-wing (free markets, globalisation are great, maximal freedom, maximal responsibility, freedom of religion) and very left wing (strong regulation, policy to minimise rent/house prices, strong social net, progressive taxation and wealth limits, freedom to be LGBTQ+ etc). | |
| ▲ | bitpush 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Keen observation both you and OP. We've gone from a sense of techno optimism to tech blaming. Valid criticism is OK (I stand by crypto being a scam) but bring up any topic that is neutral to popular(VR, Autonomous Driving, LLM) and people are first to be luddites come out. | | |
| ▲ | aylmao 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > We've gone from a sense of techno optimism to tech blaming. IMO this is simply because the tech industry isn't what it was 20+ years ago. We didn't have the monopolistic mammoths we have today, such ruthless focus on profiteering, or key figures so disconnected from the layperson. People hated on Microsoft and they were taken to court for practices that nowadays seem to be commonplace with any of the other big tech companies. A future where everyone has a personal computer was exciting and seemed strictly beneficial; but with time these "futures" the tech industry wants us to imagine have just gotten either less credible, or more dystopic. A future where everyone is on Facebook for example sounds dystopic, knowing the power that lays on personal data collection, the company's track record, or just what the product actually gives us: an endless feed of low-quality content. Even things that don't seem dystopic like VR seem kinda unnecessary when compared to the very tanginble benefit the personal computer or the internet brought about. There are more tangible reasons to not be optimistic nowadays. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | poszlem 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The truly "eternal" September. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September |
|
| ▲ | nofriend 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is such a laughable comment. Being in favour of a regulation - any regulation - is not part of the "hacker spirit". A hacker qua a hacker is interested in a regulation insofar as they can work around it, or exploit it to their ends, not to put one in place to directly achieve something. That's not to say all regulations are bad, or even that the GDPR is, just that HN being for or against it isn't proof of some demographic shift. |
|
| ▲ | sandworm101 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The hackers are still here, lurking in the shadows. Bananas. They are just tired of being berated by fanboys anytime they criticize the will of the tech bros. There is no fun in typing out a well-researched answer only to face a torrent of one-second "nah, you are wrong" replies mixed in with AI slop. Bananas. |
| |
| ▲ | filoleg 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > There is no fun in typing out a well-researched answer only to face a torrent of one-second "nah, you are wrong" replies mixed in with AI slop. Bananas. That "AI slop replies" excuse you mentioned would only apply to the past 3 years at most (aka ChatGPT 3.5 release on Nov 30th 2022). While the grandparent comment's take felt true to my perception for at least the past 10-15 years, way before "AI slop replies" were even a remote concern. | |
| ▲ | danem 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Am I the victim of the algorithm? Because all I see on HN these days is people pessimistic about tech and society. The tenor here is overwhelmingly negative. Where are you seeing anyone defend big tech, tech bros, or any tech in general? |
|
|
| ▲ | pixxel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | bsimpson 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't know if it's a changing of the audience or a change in how people behave generally, but this place has been insufferable lately whenever anything remotely related to Donald Trump's administration comes up. One of the things that made this place special relative to other online communities is the ethos to interrogate through a lens of curiosity. Now, there's a lot of vitriol that's indistinguishable from any other comment section. |
| |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah I still remember my first interaction with a supporter back in 2016. It was startling, and the first hint I had that politics was about to shift abruptly. | |
| ▲ | taurath 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s a difference in values. To some, the ends justify the means and human life has no inherent value and the world is zero sum, and to some, a lying malignant narcissist deciding who lives and who dies is a personification of evil. To some people, it’s literally a choice between that “lens of curiosity” and their families lives. But people for whom politics has never directly impacted them past a few % up or down in their paychecks can’t understand that, or feel safe in the idea that “they won’t come for me”. |
|