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

“People totally have the option of living under this type of government - it exists in top down centralized places like China.”

you’re right, i much prefer to live under a decentralized government like the United States.


This is one of the benefits of the federal / state divide in the US too. If you are worried about the other side being crazy, you can live in a state that solidly on your side of the aisle, and be insulated from when the other side is in power at the federal level.


what’s rampant is billionaires ”amplifying” vapid narcissism because they want a disempowered population with no good role models or values other than the worship of money, and the path to money is being a cog in the western MCI/global supply chain/the great satan. people don’t want to build the surveillance state for google if it means they are going to be shamed and looked at as creeps. but if you give them enough money, they can film the crispest videos with their most expensive phones of their most expensive houses, making them de-facto cool, because everyone else is poor/a loser.


so life’s greatest winner is genghis khan


Do you have an alternative "point of life"?

Is it career? If so, that's pretty depressing. Happiness is a superficial emotion. If your loved one was "happy" spending his entire life playing fortnight in his parent's basement, would you be sad for him? Charity?

I don't know. Never found a meaning as compelling as having children.


>Happiness is a superficial emotion

A google definition of superficial is "appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely."

I don't see how the definition of a type of emotion can be "superficial". Presumably your usage of "happy" in quotes is not actually happiness if you decided to put it in quotes. If you meant it as him actually being happy then someone could decide to be sad for him but that has nothing to do with his own happiness. Instead it would just be someone arrogantly projecting their own sensibilities and worldview onto the fortnite player while thinking they know better sources of happiness (when really the causes are subjective and every person derives varying levels of joy in different ways).

Making kids a "point of life" can itself be seen as a last ditch effort to be happy. The thought that there's some purpose in life that points to procreating is arbitrarily chosen and is seemingly that way because people derive happiness from some idea of having a legacy or finding comfort in interpreting the potential continuous spread of dna as some proxy for immortality


Why does there have to be a point? Just go with it.



Reproducing is just a mechanism for adaptation. So the ultimate goal is to adapt now?


what a bizarre reaction to my comment


I read your comment as somewhat dismissive at the point of life being having children because you made a joke of Genghis Khan "winning" the game of life.


greatest score - so far

wait for the scientist who'll start printing soldier clones of himself


thank you


this advice from twitter users is always the same and its always so bizarre. just invest thousands of hours into cultivating your own feed through the following process: every time you get insulted by some child/idiot/bot, just select the account of that individual person then block them or mute or unfollow. do this thousands (or millions?) of times for every individual person on twitter. jesus christ i cant think of something more unappealing.

the worst part of this is the more you invest into making it useable, the worse it is when big brother blocks/mutes you; the more enmeshed you are into this MCI tool for manufacturing consent. it sounds like the type of person who would be into twitter is the type of person who likes to spend a lot of time researching which credit card gives the best 2% cash back or whatever. genuinely just gross and boring to the point of being repulsive to most people on earth


How are bots insulting you? That's just impressive more than anything.


“On top of something like charm”

my autismometer just exploded


not sure why you’re being downvoted.


yea god forbid the poors are allowed to talk amongst themselves


“This is probably good for society, as it puts more capital in the hands of people who will invest in things that succeed rather than things that fail.”

interesting how in your model wealth inequality doesn’t affect society at all. if one guy has a trillion and everyone else has a penny, it’s good for our society, bc he will invest in things that succeed, because no one else has a chance to succeed.


nobody cares about your opinion because no one knows who you are


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: