Cory Doctorow's "Revenge of the Chickenized Reverse-Centaurs" argues that tech companies, driven by venture capital's demand for exponential growth, prioritize exploitative business models. They achieve this "growth" by externalizing costs onto society and vulnerable workers, like gig economy drivers or content moderators. This creates a system akin to "reverse-centaurs," where a powerful, automated system is directed by a precarious, dehumanized human worker, a dynamic exemplified by Uber's treatment of its drivers. Doctorow further likens this to the exploitative practices of the poultry industry, where chickens are bred and treated for maximum profit regardless of animal welfare, thus "chickenizing" these workers. Ultimately, he calls for regulatory intervention and collective action to dismantle these harmful systems before they further erode social structures and individual well-being.
Dan Sinker's "The Who Cares Era" describes a pervasive societal apathy fueled by information overload and the relentless churn of the news cycle. Bombarded with crises, both real and manufactured, individuals have retreated into a state of detached indifference. This "who cares" attitude isn't necessarily malicious, but rather a coping mechanism for navigating a world saturated with negativity and a sense of powerlessness. It manifests in disengagement from news and politics, a prioritization of personal well-being, and a focus on smaller, more manageable concerns. Sinker posits that this era presents a unique opportunity for meaningful change driven by localized action and a rejection of grand narratives, allowing individuals to find purpose and connection within their immediate communities.
Hacker News users largely agreed with the premise of Dan Sinker's "Who Cares" article, discussing the increasing apathy and learned helplessness around societal problems. Several commenters pointed to the overwhelming nature of global issues like climate change and political dysfunction, leading to a sense of powerlessness. Some suggested this apathy is a defense mechanism, while others viewed it as a symptom of a broken system. The discussion also touched on the role of social media in amplifying negativity and the potential for local action as a more effective approach than focusing on large-scale problems. A few disagreed, arguing that caring is still present, just expressed differently or directed towards more immediate concerns.
The post explores the differing perspectives on technological advancement, particularly AI. It contrasts the "seers," who grasp the transformative potential of these technologies and anticipate both the immense benefits and existential risks, with those who "cannot even look," either dismissing the technology's significance entirely or focusing narrowly on short-term impacts. The author argues this divide isn't about intelligence but imagination and the ability to extrapolate current trends to envision radical future possibilities. They emphasize the urgency of recognizing the potential for profound societal disruption and the need for proactive strategies to navigate the coming changes, suggesting that the future hinges on whether the "seers" can effectively communicate their vision to the wider society.
Hacker News users discussed the subjectivity of "seeing" and "looking," with several agreeing with the article's premise that some individuals engage more deeply with the world around them. Some commenters connected this idea to mindfulness and the ability to be present. Others attributed the difference to curiosity, experience, and knowledge, suggesting that expertise in a field allows for a deeper level of observation. A few debated the article's tone, finding it overly dramatic or even condescending. Some pushed back against the binary presented, arguing that "seeing" is a spectrum and everyone engages with the world differently. There was also discussion about the role of privilege and access in shaping one's ability to "see."
The Boston Globe article "Bizarro World" explores the phenomenon of reverse commuting, where people live in the city and work in the suburbs. It profiles several individuals making this unconventional choice, driven by factors like cheaper urban housing, shorter commutes against the main traffic flow, and a desire for a more vibrant city life after work. The article highlights the emerging trend's impact on suburban towns grappling with increased daytime populations and the need for new amenities and services to cater to these reverse commuters. It also notes the changing perception of suburbs as solely bedroom communities, acknowledging their growing role as employment hubs.
HN commenters discuss the "Bizarro World" phenomenon of reversed or contradictory situations. Some express experiencing this feeling acutely in recent years, citing political discourse and technological advancements as contributing factors. Others suggest the feeling is not new, pointing to historical examples and arguing that perceived strangeness is often a matter of perspective and generational differences. A few comments delve into the psychological aspects, suggesting that the brain's tendency to filter information may contribute to this perception. One commenter notes that exposure to online echo chambers can exacerbate the sense of living in a Bizarro World. Several commenters discuss the article's examples, like the changing role of newspapers, through the lens of these perspectives.
Sam Jordison reflects on the unexpected legacy of his "Crap Towns" books, which humorously cataloged perceived downsides of British towns. While initially intending lighthearted ribbing, he now grapples with the books' contribution to a more divisive and negative public discourse. He acknowledges the books' mean-spiritedness and the potential hurt they caused, particularly in a time of heightened political polarization and economic hardship. Jordison expresses discomfort with the books' role in fueling online negativity and normalizing mockery of places and communities, a phenomenon amplified by social media. He concludes with a desire to move towards kinder and more constructive conversations about place and identity.
Hacker News users discussing the "Crap Towns" book generally agree that humor based on mocking places and their residents hasn't aged well. Several commenters pointed out the inherent mean-spiritedness of the concept, noting it punches down at communities often facing economic hardship and social challenges. Some argue this type of humor contributes to negative stereotypes and reinforces existing prejudices. Others recalled finding the book funny in their youth but now see it as insensitive. A few defend the book as harmless fun and suggest critics are overly sensitive. The overall sentiment, however, leans towards acknowledging the problematic nature of such humor and its potential for harm.
Brad Montague's "Librarians Are Dangerous" argues that librarians, far from being quiet keepers of books, are actually radical agents of change. They empower individuals with access to information, fostering critical thinking and challenging the status quo. By curating diverse perspectives and facilitating open dialogue, librarians equip communities to grapple with complex issues and build a better future. This makes them inherently threatening to those who benefit from ignorance and control, hence the "dangerous" label. Their dedication to intellectual freedom and community growth represents a powerful force for positive social transformation.
HN commenters largely disagreed with the article's premise. Several pointed out that the author's examples, like librarians helping patrons access government information or fighting censorship, are core tenets of the profession and beneficial to society. Some argued that the author mischaracterized librarians' roles and motivations, painting them as radical activists rather than information professionals. Others noted the irony of complaining about "censorship" while advocating for restricting access to certain materials. A few commenters questioned the author's understanding of library systems and how collection development actually works, highlighting the collaborative and community-driven nature of these processes. Some saw the article as simply clickbait or a misunderstanding of the library profession.
The author predicts a future where AI-driven content farms flood the internet, creating an overwhelming amount of low-quality, SEO-optimized content designed solely for ad revenue. This will drown out human-created content, making it increasingly difficult to find valuable information online. The internet will become a vast wasteland of algorithmically generated text and images, ultimately degrading the online experience and leaving users frustrated with the lack of genuine human connection and authentic content. This bleak future is driven by the economic incentives of advertising, where quantity trumps quality, and AI provides a cost-effective way to dominate search results.
HN users largely agree with the author's premise that AI will disrupt creative fields, leading to a glut of mediocre content and a devaluation of human-created art. Some highlight the historical precedent of technological advancements impacting creative industries, such as photography replacing portrait painters. Concerns about copyright, the legal definition of art, and the difficulty of proving human authorship are recurring themes. Several commenters discuss the potential for AI to become a tool for artists, rather than a replacement, suggesting humans might curate or refine AI-generated content. A few express skepticism, pointing to the limitations of current AI and the enduring value of human creativity and emotional depth. The possibility of AI-generated art creating new artistic mediums or aesthetics is also mentioned.
The article "Who's Afraid of Tom Wolfe?" explores the mixed critical reception of Tom Wolfe's fiction, particularly focusing on A Man in Full. While acknowledging Wolfe's journalistic talent and cultural influence, the author dissects the criticisms leveled against his novels: simplistic prose, cartoonish characters, and sprawling, unwieldy plots. The piece ultimately suggests that the negative reactions stem from a discomfort with Wolfe's satirical portrayal of societal elites and his embrace of realism, which challenges prevailing literary trends favoring minimalism and postmodernism. Wolfe's ambition and popularity, the article implies, threaten the established literary guard, leading to a dismissive attitude toward his work despite its insightful social commentary.
HN commenters largely agree that Wolfe's decline in quality began after A Man in Full, with some attributing it to his reliance on formulaic social satire and others to his adoption of a more conservative viewpoint. Several suggest that his earlier works like The Right Stuff and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test remain classics of New Journalism, praising Wolfe's immersive reporting and energetic prose. Some counter that Wolfe's work was always shallow, stylistic flourish over substance, and enjoyed more popularity than deserved. A few commenters discuss his influence on other writers and the legacy of New Journalism more broadly. One highly upvoted comment notes the irony of Wolfe, who mocked academia, now being the subject of academic analysis.
Neal Stephenson's "Wrong 5" argues that Thomas More's Utopia hypocritically condemns individual acquisitiveness while simultaneously advocating for England's imperial expansion and resource extraction under the guise of "improvement." More portrays Utopians as morally superior for rejecting private property, yet Stephenson contends this stance ignores the exploitative nature of acquiring resources and labor to establish and maintain Utopia's seemingly idyllic state. He highlights the inherent contradiction of More, a wealthy lawyer serving a rapacious empire, decrying individual greed while remaining silent about the systemic greed driving England's colonial ambitions. Essentially, Stephenson posits that Utopia serves as a veiled justification for powerful entities seizing resources under the pretense of societal betterment, a process mirroring England's contemporary actions.
The Hacker News comments generally agree with Stephenson's critique of Thomas More's Utopia, finding his vision naive and impractical. Several commenters point out the hypocrisy of More's personal wealth and position contrasting with the communist ideals he espouses in Utopia. Some discuss the inherent difficulties and contradictions in attempting to design a perfect society, citing issues of human nature and the potential for tyranny. Others find value in utopian thought experiments, even if flawed, as they can spark discussion and inspire incremental improvements. A few commenters delve into More's religious context and the historical influences on his writing, suggesting that modern interpretations may miss nuances of his intent. One commenter highlights the darkly satirical elements of Utopia, arguing that it shouldn't be taken entirely at face value.
The article "Should We Decouple Technology from Everyday Life?" argues against the pervasive integration of technology into our lives, advocating for a conscious "decoupling" to reclaim human agency. It contends that while technology offers conveniences, it also fosters dependence, weakens essential skills and virtues like patience and contemplation, and subtly shapes our behavior and desires in ways we may not fully understand or control. Rather than outright rejection, the author proposes a more intentional and discerning approach to technology adoption, prioritizing activities and practices that foster genuine human flourishing over mere efficiency and entertainment. This involves recognizing the inherent limitations and potential harms of technology and actively cultivating spaces and times free from its influence.
HN commenters largely disagree with the premise of decoupling technology from everyday life, finding it unrealistic, undesirable, and potentially harmful. Several argue that technology is inherently intertwined with human progress and that trying to separate the two is akin to rejecting advancement. Some express concern that the author's view romanticizes the past and ignores the benefits technology brings, like increased access to information and improved healthcare. Others point out the vague and undefined nature of "technology" in the article, making the argument difficult to engage with seriously. A few commenters suggest the author may be referring to specific technologies rather than all technology, and that a more nuanced discussion about responsible integration and regulation would be more productive. The overall sentiment is skeptical of the article's core argument.
The post "Have you ever seen a goth downtown?" explores the perceived disappearance of visibly distinct subcultures, particularly goths, from urban centers. It posits that while these subcultures haven't vanished, they've become less visible due to several factors. The internet allows individuals to connect with like-minded people online, reducing the need for physical congregation. Additionally, the mainstreaming of alternative fashion and the rise of fast fashion have made formerly unique subcultural styles more accessible and less distinctive. Finally, increased social acceptance and reduced stigma around alternative styles may have lessened the need for overt displays of subcultural affiliation. These changes have resulted in a blending of subcultures into the broader urban landscape, making them less immediately noticeable to casual observers.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the linked article – that downtowns are struggling because they lack a diverse mix of people and activities catering to different subcultures and socioeconomic groups. Commenters pointed to factors like high rents, chain stores replacing independent businesses, and the homogenization of culture as contributing to this decline. Several users shared anecdotes of vibrant, diverse downtowns they'd experienced, contrasting them with the sterile environments of many modern city centers. The most compelling comments highlighted the importance of affordable spaces and a mix of uses (residential, commercial, entertainment) to create a thriving downtown. One user argued that downtowns should aim to be "interesting and fun" rather than simply "efficient." Another suggested that successful downtowns often cater to specific niche interests, creating a draw for diverse groups.
The blog post "Is Atlas Shrugged the New Vibe?" explores the apparent resurgence of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and her novel Atlas Shrugged among younger generations, particularly online. The author notes the book's themes of individualism, self-reliance, and skepticism towards government intervention are resonating with some who feel disillusioned with current societal structures and economic systems. However, the post questions whether this renewed interest stems from a genuine understanding of Rand's complex philosophy or a superficial embrace of its "anti-establishment" aesthetic, driven by social media trends. Ultimately, it suggests the novel's resurgence is more a reflection of contemporary anxieties than a deep ideological shift.
HN commenters largely disagree with the premise that Atlas Shrugged is having a resurgence. Several point out that its popularity has remained relatively consistent within certain libertarian-leaning circles and that the author misinterprets familiarity with its concepts (like "going Galt") with a renewed interest in the book itself. Some commenters suggest the article's author is simply encountering the book for the first time and projecting broader cultural relevance onto their personal experience. Others note the book's enduring appeal to specific demographics, like teenagers and those frustrated with perceived societal injustices, but caution against equating this with mainstream popularity. A few commenters offer alternative explanations for the perceived "vibe shift," citing increasing economic anxieties and the appeal of individualist philosophies in times of uncertainty. Finally, several commenters critique the article's writing style and shallow analysis.
Summary of Comments ( 86 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44118055
HN commenters largely agree with Doctorow's premise that over-reliance on automated systems leads to deskilling and vulnerability. Several highlight examples of this phenomenon, such as pilots losing basic stick-and-rudder skills due to autopilot overuse and the fragility of just-in-time supply chains. Some discuss the trade-off between efficiency and resilience, arguing that systems designed for maximum efficiency often lack the flexibility to adapt to unexpected circumstances. Others point out the potential for "automation surprises," where automated systems behave in unexpected ways, and the difficulty of intervening when things go wrong. A few commenters offer solutions, such as designing systems that allow for human intervention and prioritizing training and skill development, even in highly automated environments.
The Hacker News post titled "Revenge of the Chickenized Reverse-Centaurs" has generated several comments discussing the concept of "Chickenized Reverse Centaurs" introduced in Cory Doctorow's article.
Several commenters engage with the core idea of powerful tools becoming less useful due to over-reliance on automated assistance. One commenter describes this as "deskilling by design," where software deliberately hides complexity, leading to users who can operate the tool but lack deeper understanding. This is exemplified by analogies to pilots relying heavily on autopilot or photographers using automatic settings without comprehending the underlying principles. This commenter also raises the concern of becoming reliant on these simplified tools, making it difficult to revert to more manual and nuanced approaches when necessary.
The discussion also touches on the balance between automation and human control. One commenter argues that some level of automation is essential for managing complex systems and that the ideal scenario involves humans guiding automated systems rather than being completely hands-on. They suggest the goal should be to leverage automation for efficiency while retaining the ability to intervene and make critical decisions. Another commenter expresses concern over the potential for these automated systems to become so complex that they are beyond human comprehension and control, leading to unintended consequences.
Another thread focuses on the impact of this phenomenon on different professions. Examples are given of programmers who may not fully understand the underlying systems they work with and writers becoming overly reliant on AI writing tools. This raises concerns about the quality of work produced and the potential loss of creativity and critical thinking skills.
Some comments also explore the societal implications of "Chickenized Reverse Centaurs." One commenter worries about the potential for job displacement as automated systems take over tasks previously performed by humans. Another points out the risk of increased inequality as access to powerful tools and the knowledge to use them effectively becomes concentrated in the hands of a few.
Finally, some comments offer alternative perspectives or challenge the premise of the article. One commenter suggests that the concept of "Chickenized Reverse Centaurs" is not new and is simply a restatement of existing concerns about automation. Another argues that the focus should be on educating users and empowering them to understand the tools they use rather than simply decrying automation.