Martha Nussbaum's philosophical work offers both intellectual rigor and genuine pleasure. She tackles complex issues like justice, emotions, and human capabilities with clarity and compelling prose, weaving together literary examples, historical analysis, and personal reflections. Her focus on human vulnerability and the importance of fostering capabilities for a flourishing life makes her philosophy deeply relevant and engaging, encouraging readers to grapple with essential questions about what it means to live a good life and build a just society.
The original poster is seeking venture capital funds that prioritize ethical considerations alongside financial returns. They are specifically interested in funds that actively avoid investing in companies contributing to societal harms like environmental damage, exploitation, or addiction. They're looking for recommendations of VCs with a demonstrably strong commitment to ethical investing, potentially including impact investing funds or those with publicly stated ethical guidelines.
The Hacker News comments on "Ask HN: Ethical VC Funds?" express skepticism about the existence of truly "ethical" VCs. Many commenters argue that the fundamental nature of venture capital, which seeks maximum returns, is inherently at odds with ethical considerations. Some suggest that impact investing might be a closer fit for the OP's goals, while others point out the difficulty of defining "ethical" in a universally accepted way. Several commenters mention specific funds or strategies that incorporate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors, but acknowledge that these are often more about risk mitigation and public image than genuine ethical concerns. A few commenters offer more cynical takes, suggesting that "ethical VC" is primarily a marketing tactic. Overall, the consensus leans towards pragmatism, with many suggesting the OP focus on finding VCs whose values align with their own, rather than searching for a mythical perfectly ethical fund.
This Presidential Memorandum directs federal agencies to enhance accountability and customer experience by requiring annual "Learn to Improve" plans. These plans will outline how agencies will collect customer feedback, identify areas for improvement, implement changes, and track progress on key performance indicators related to service delivery and equity. Agencies are expected to leverage data and evidence-based practices to drive these improvements, focusing on streamlining services, reducing burdens on the public, and ensuring equitable outcomes. Progress will be monitored by the Office of Management and Budget, which will publish an annual report summarizing agency efforts and highlighting best practices.
HN commenters are largely critical of the executive order, questioning its efficacy and expressing cynicism about government accountability in general. Several point out the irony of the order coming from an administration often accused of lacking transparency. Some question the practicality of measuring "customer experience" for government services, comparing it to businesses but acknowledging the inherent differences. Others see the order as primarily performative, designed to create a sense of action without meaningful impact. A few express cautious optimism, hoping for genuine improvement but remaining skeptical. The lack of concrete details in the order is a frequent point of concern, leading some to believe it's more about public relations than actual policy change.
This 2010 essay argues that running a nonfree program on your server, even for personal use, compromises your freedom and contributes to a broader system of user subjugation. While seemingly a private act, hosting proprietary software empowers the software's developer to control your computing, potentially through surveillance, restrictions on usage, or even remote bricking. This reinforces the developer's power over all users, making it harder for free software alternatives to gain traction. By choosing free software, you reclaim control over your server and contribute to a freer digital world for everyone.
HN users largely agree with the article's premise that "personal" devices like "smart" TVs, phones, and even "networked" appliances primarily serve their manufacturers, not the user. Commenters point out the data collection practices of these devices, noting how they send usage data, location information, and even recordings back to corporations. Some users discuss the difficulty of mitigating this data leakage, mentioning custom firmware, self-hosting, and network segregation. Others lament the lack of consumer awareness and the acceptance of these practices as the norm. A few comments highlight the irony of "smart" devices often being less functional and convenient due to their dependence on external servers and frequent updates. The idea of truly owning one's devices versus merely licensing them is also debated. Overall, the thread reflects a shared concern about the erosion of privacy and user control in the age of connected devices.
Simon Willison argues that computers cannot be held accountable because accountability requires subjective experience, including understanding consequences and feeling remorse or guilt. Computers, as deterministic systems following instructions, lack these crucial components of consciousness. While we can and should hold humans accountable for the design, deployment, and outcomes of computer systems, ascribing accountability to the machines themselves is a category error, akin to blaming a hammer for hitting a thumb. This doesn't absolve us from addressing the harms caused by AI and algorithms, but requires focusing responsibility on the human actors involved.
HN users largely agree with the premise that computers, lacking sentience and agency, cannot be held accountable. The discussion centers around the implications of this, particularly regarding the legal and ethical responsibilities of the humans behind AI systems. Several compelling comments highlight the need for clear lines of accountability for the creators, deployers, and users of AI, emphasizing that focusing on punishing the "computer" is a distraction. One user points out that inanimate objects like cars are already subject to regulations and their human operators held responsible for accidents. Others suggest the concept of "accountability" for AI needs rethinking, perhaps focusing on verifiable safety standards and rigorous testing, rather than retribution. The potential for individuals to hide behind AI as a scapegoat is also raised as a major concern.
Qntm's "Developer Philosophy" emphasizes a pragmatic approach to software development centered around the user. Functionality and usability reign supreme, prioritizing delivering working, valuable software over adhering to abstract principles or chasing technical perfection. This involves embracing simplicity, avoiding unnecessary complexity, and focusing on the core problem the software aims to solve. The post advocates for iterative development, accepting that software is never truly "finished," and encourages a willingness to learn and adapt throughout the process. Ultimately, the philosophy boils down to building things that work and are useful for people, favoring practicality and continuous improvement over dogmatic adherence to any specific methodology.
Hacker News users discuss the linked blog post about "Developer Philosophy." Several commenters appreciate the author's humor and engaging writing style. Some agree with the core argument about developers often over-engineering solutions and prioritizing "cleverness" over simplicity. One commenter points out the irony of using complex language to describe this phenomenon. Others disagree with the premise, arguing that performance optimization and preparing for future scaling are valid concerns. The discussion also touches upon the tension between writing maintainable code and the desire for intellectual stimulation and creativity in programming. A few commenters express skepticism about the "one true way" to develop software and emphasize the importance of context and specific project requirements. There's also a thread discussing the value of different programming paradigms and the role of experience in shaping a developer's philosophy.
Cory Doctorow's "It's Not a Crime If We Do It With an App" argues that enclosing formerly analog activities within proprietary apps often transforms acceptable behaviors into exploitable data points. Companies use the guise of convenience and added features to justify these apps, gathering vast amounts of user data that is then monetized or weaponized through surveillance. This creates a system where everyday actions, previously unregulated, become subject to corporate control and potential abuse, ultimately diminishing user autonomy and creating new vectors for discrimination and exploitation. The post uses the satirical example of a potato-tracking app to illustrate how seemingly innocuous data collection can lead to intrusive monitoring and manipulation.
HN commenters generally agree with Doctorow's premise that large corporations use "regulatory capture" to avoid legal consequences for harmful actions, citing examples like Facebook and Purdue Pharma. Some questioned the framing of the potato tracking scenario as overly simplistic, arguing that real-world supply chains are vastly more complex. A few commenters discussed the practicality of Doctorow's proposed solutions, debating the efficacy of co-ops and decentralized systems in combating corporate power. There was some skepticism about the feasibility of truly anonymized data collection and the potential for abuse even in decentralized systems. Several pointed out the inherent tension between the convenience offered by these technologies and the potential for exploitation.
Agnes Callard's Open Socrates offers a practical philosophy focused on "aspiring." Callard argues that we should actively strive for values we don't yet hold, embracing the difficult process of becoming the kind of person who embodies them. The book explores this through engaging with figures like Socrates and Plato, emphasizing the importance of self-creation and the pursuit of a life guided by reason and critical thinking. While not providing easy answers, it encourages readers to confront their own limitations and actively work towards a better version of themselves.
HN commenters generally express interest in Callard's approach to philosophy as a way of life, rather than just an academic pursuit. Several praise the reviewer's clear explanation of Callard's "aspirational" philosophy. Some discuss their own experiences with transformational learning and self-improvement, echoing Callard's emphasis on actively striving for a better self. A few express skepticism about the practicality or accessibility of her methods, questioning whether her approach is truly novel or simply repackaged ancient wisdom. Others are intrigued by the concept of "proleptic reasons," where present actions are justified by a future, hoped-for self. Overall, the comments reflect a mix of curiosity, cautious optimism, and some doubt regarding the applicability of Callard's philosophical framework.
Luke Plant explores the potential uses and pitfalls of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Christian apologetics. While acknowledging LLMs' ability to quickly generate content, summarize arguments, and potentially reach wider audiences, he cautions against over-reliance. He argues that LLMs lack genuine understanding and the ability to engage with nuanced theological concepts, risking misrepresentation or superficial arguments. Furthermore, the persuasive nature of LLMs could prioritize rhetorical flourish over truth, potentially deceiving rather than convincing. Plant suggests LLMs can be valuable tools for research, brainstorming, and refining arguments, but emphasizes the irreplaceable role of human reason, spiritual discernment, and authentic faith in effective apologetics.
HN users generally express skepticism towards using LLMs for Christian apologetics. Several commenters point out the inherent contradiction in using a probabilistic model based on statistical relationships to argue for absolute truth and divine revelation. Others highlight the potential for LLMs to generate superficially convincing but ultimately flawed arguments, potentially misleading those seeking genuine understanding. The risk of misrepresenting scripture or theological nuances is also raised, along with concerns about the LLM potentially becoming the focus of faith rather than the divine itself. Some acknowledge potential uses in generating outlines or brainstorming ideas, but ultimately believe relying on LLMs undermines the core principles of faith and reasoned apologetics. A few commenters suggest exploring the philosophical implications of using LLMs for religious discourse, but the overall sentiment is one of caution and doubt.
Summary of Comments ( 113 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43291541
Hacker News users discuss Nussbaum's accessibility and impact. Some praise her clear prose and ability to bridge academic philosophy with real-world concerns, particularly regarding emotions, ethics, and social justice. Others find her work overly sentimental or politically biased. A few commenters debate the merits of her capabilities approach, with some suggesting alternative frameworks for addressing inequality. The most compelling comments highlight Nussbaum's skill in making complex philosophical concepts understandable and relevant to a broad audience, while acknowledging potential criticisms of her work. One user contrasts her with Judith Butler, suggesting Nussbaum's clarity makes her ideas more readily applicable. Another emphasizes the value of her focus on emotions in ethical and political discourse.
The Hacker News post titled "The necessity of Nussbaum," linking to an Aeon essay praising Martha Nussbaum's philosophy, has generated a modest discussion with a few insightful comments. While not a highly active thread, several commenters engage with the core ideas presented.
One commenter highlights the practical, applicable nature of Nussbaum's work, contrasting it with more abstract philosophical pursuits. They appreciate her focus on real-world issues and her ability to bridge the gap between theory and practice, particularly in areas like capabilities and social justice. This commenter sees Nussbaum's work as directly relevant to improving human lives.
Another commenter echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the clarity and accessibility of Nussbaum's writing, making complex philosophical concepts understandable to a broader audience. They appreciate her ability to communicate effectively without sacrificing intellectual rigor. This commenter sees her work as a valuable resource for those seeking to engage with philosophical ideas in a meaningful way.
A further comment focuses on Nussbaum's contributions to the "capabilities approach," which emphasizes the importance of providing individuals with the necessary resources and opportunities to flourish. This commenter suggests that her work in this area has had a significant impact on development economics and social policy.
A different perspective is offered by a commenter who expresses some skepticism towards Nussbaum's political philosophy. While acknowledging her intellectual contributions, this commenter raises concerns about what they perceive as a potential bias in her application of philosophical principles to political issues. They suggest a need for critical engagement with her work and a consideration of alternative perspectives.
Finally, a commenter mentions Nussbaum's book "The Fragility of Goodness," highlighting its exploration of the role of luck and vulnerability in human life. This commenter appreciates Nussbaum's ability to engage with difficult and emotionally charged topics in a thoughtful and nuanced manner.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect an appreciation for Nussbaum's clear writing style, her focus on practical issues, and her contributions to the capabilities approach. Some reservations about her political philosophy are also expressed, encouraging a critical examination of her work. While the discussion isn't extensive, it provides a valuable starting point for exploring the key themes and debates surrounding Nussbaum's philosophy.