This above comment is a perfect example. I don't know much about Marc, but where I'm concerned, he's just a guy who has experience in the VC scene, was invited to talk at an event, and agreed to share his personal thoughts and strategies. I read through the article, and nothing that he said really stood out in any way, good or bad. The thing about self-driving cars was just him saying "look at the potential upside for people who're currently wasting time in daily commutes" and "don't nitpick so much on the things that can go wrong, that you lose sight of the potential for things to go tremendously right".

A little platitude-like, sure. But not really objectionable in any way. I certainly don't think anything he said in the article warranted a ranting about "hot air coming out of money-grubbing share-diluting quality-of-life-ruining tech oligarchs whose feet we're worshipping". If you really want to have a discussion about this tangent, write your own blog post, submit it, and let's have a discussion there. But it's sad to see the comments thread get hijacked by such superfluous soapboxing.

I realize that me posting this isn't going to do anything. This is a lost cause, and my venting is more cathartic than anything. The culture of this place has changed, and I don't think we can ever go back to how it used to be. I guess it's time to start looking for another place to frequent.

There is also great disconnect between the tech billionaires and the real problems in the world.

The numbers they base their worldview on are carefully curated and the story is of course that 'things are greater than ever', but the rest of the people (especially outside the US) are felling it very differently.

Proof of that is Brexit, Trump and populists + nationalists winning in many countries - voted in by people who are finding it hard to adapt to the fast-changing pace of the tech-driven world, in which they have no shares or say.

Compared to 'real' problems that the world faces, self-driving cars are, in my humble opinion, irrelevant. From a passenger's perspective, self-driving vehicles have existed since forever - called buses, trains or taxis, so I don't see how the passenger experience will dramatically change when it's driven by a computer rather than a human.

From the perspective of the owner of a self-driving fleet, though, this is a potentially fantastic business.

Of course profits will be largely shared by a couple of shareholders and some leftovers offered to the engineers in the form of yearly salaries and maybe some equity, while the rest of us will get a new bill each month for the miles/seconds driven.

I know it because I experienced it myself as an engineer in a company in which Mark made billions, while those who built the whole thing received scraps from the deal.

So I think the OP post is understandable - maybe the tone was a bit harsh, but the main points I find hard to not agree with.

What problems are more 'real' than 1 million people dying each year from car related injuries?

Don't forget, Andreesen has had his share of spectacular failures too. He just had more resources to bet with going forward from them.

Anyone other than me find it funny that Mark not only talks to a very small circle of people for "validity" of his ideas, he's proud to have figured out how to avoid even that in this article?

I am a woman. My experience of the forum has vastly improved during that time.

I am not saying that HN does not have problems. When I arrived, it had a real sense of community that it seems to mostly lack today, but that sense of community and mutually respectful conversation was reserved for the privileged few, some core group of members. It was not extended to me. I experienced all kinds of drama.

I do what I can to promote genuine mutual respect for all parties. I think there is certainly room for improvement in that regard. But I sometimes wonder if the changes HN has seen in terms of that initial core community apparently deteriorating were a necessary prerequisite for positive changes, such as being more welcoming of women. And while I sometimes wish that atmosphere of respectfulness had not been lost, I do wonder if its preservation would have continued to exclude some people, such as me.

I never quite know how to feel about such thoughts.

But the general feel seems a lot meaner these days. There are less specific attacks against race/gender/sexuality/etc but more general attacks against anyone and everyone and I think it has a compounding effect. I know I am certainly less kind on here than I use to be. It's that drive towards the negative that made me all but stop posting on Reddit since I didn't like the person I was when commenting there. It's having the same effect here. Every Show HN/talk/release seems to be more than 50% negative these days.

I'd love to see someone run a sentiment analysis on the comments here though to see if it's just that I'm seeing more negativity or if it really exists.

I mean we all remember drews first dropbox post and the whole "Why not just use rsync! this is stupid" type comments so maybe I just have rose coloured glasses.

I think the world is still learning to interact effectively in online forums. There is still plenty to learn about how to make that work effectively.

Reddit: No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded.

I agree that the forum has been on a ten year trends towards slipstreaming in politics, ideology, and dogma on more and more articles. They follow very similar templates: a standard liberal rant about how we need more benefits for the people or a standard libertarian rant about how the markets will take care of it all. As a result, it becomes less interesting because the points made are similar.

The reality is that stasis leads to the stagnation and death of any community, and it's the only way to avert change. If you're into frontiers though, the good news is that there are always new frontiers.

It's possible to recognize this pattern and choose to change it into one that has positive side effects instead of negative ones. Many HN users have done so. I had a long process to go through myself.

As for the culture of the forum having shifted recently, it's society at large that has become more vitriolic. This is not unique to HN, nor can we expect to be immune from macro trends. We need to assess this accurately to have good options for reacting. If a boat is lurching because of a stormy sea, the problem is not in the boat. Unless the sea smashes the boat altogether.

The secret is to keep searching for a new place to have high quality discussions. You never know where it will pop up. (If it's a place where people expect to find it, then all the popular kids will go there and make noise.) I wouldn't give up on HN yet though, it still has quality discussions most of the time.

FWIW, comments like yours are helpful to people like me in that they provide the assurance that I'm not alone in largely disagreeing with the sentiment expressed in the top HN comments in threads like these.

You may feel that the level of discourse has declined, but our social context has shifted quite a bit too. In an era of extreme wealth inequality, the tech industry and venture capitalism have taken on new and perhaps darker connotations. It's fine to walk away from that discussion, but I don't think doing so is to the benefit of understanding the reality of our circumstances.

The comment you replied to was relevant to the article and it articulates a valuable perspective that I actually wish we saw more of on HN, more skepticism toward the established VC/startup investment process. It's especially important because YC's involvement with HN has made it a nexus for many who are infatuated with startup culture and unwilling to countenance criticism of it.

FWIW, my account claims to be 3173 days old (or "8.715 average Gregorian years" according to WolframAlpha) and I don't think what you're describing is anything new, or that it's bad. The comments have always been the star of the show at HN. The articles are treated as catalysts because they are. HN is about the discussion that occurs on HN.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think we could much worse than to start moving away from the SV VC startup mentality which is so dominant.It's become ridiculous. Think about how many stories you see about some guy who is living in a van in SF because that's what you have to do now.

The comments sections are almost impossible to read because the signal to noise ratio is getting so large.

> Self-driving cars, for example, could potentially put 5 million people involved in transportation jobs out of work. And creating 5 million new jobs for them seems impossible with net monthly job gains typically in the hundreds of thousands. “Five million jobs seem like a lot of jobs. It is a lot,” Andreessen says. But looking at the big picture shows that “every year in the U.S. on average about 21 million jobs are destroyed and about 24.5 million are created,” Andreessen says. “So the real answer to how do you replace 5 million jobs is, we already replace that in less than a quarter [of a year] today.”

This is disingenuous, bordering on stupid.

If a McDonald's closes and another one opens, 20 jobs are destroyed and 20 new ones are created, but they're the same!

What we are talking about with self-driving cars is an entire category of jobs being destroyed, and 5 million people doing the same thing, becoming unemployed at the exact same time (a time when their job doesn't exist anymore).

Very different from the normal life of the economy.

This has happened many, many times over the 250 years since the Industrial Revolution. Each time, the old jobs have been replaced by newer and better jobs, and each time people have worried about mass unemployment and misery that did not happen.

One trend to consider: each "mega successful company" for the past 100 years or so (maybe longer?) has been extraordinary because of how few people were required to start the company, and how much profit per employee they generate. The unspoken side effect is "we need fewer people" (and they're hard to find AKA "90% of the people we talk to can't do the job"). As companies focus on these types of efficiencies, they're creating more value while providing fewer jobs. I think this is OK, but that's what's happening. So take this to its logical limit and you have mass unemployment. Now add A.I. as an accelerator to that and you have what will actually happen.

This is a very accessible video with a similar argument and much better examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

We're just going to have to start thinking about a society where 50% of the "eligible workers" are out of work at any given time. The way we're setup now, it'd be chaos. But there's a lot that can be done ahead of time to prepare, like expanding welfare until it looked more like a basic income and was socially acceptable.

In such a world, most people will have to be on the dole at some point in their life, and that will be OK. As opposed to now where our society thinks that's very much not ok and will punish you in various ways for it. Most people are simply not going to be economically useful and no amount of forcing them to be re-educated is going to change that.

I don't think so.

If "most people are simply not going to be economically useful" for what reason, besides an appeal to utopianism, is it a good idea to strain the country's resources in chase of an ideal?

Basic income will pave the way to cementing this feudalistic class-inequality we possess today. Extremely simplified: Those who believe in virtue through "self-fulfillment" (leisure) will intermingle and breed with the same, and so will those who believe in virtue through industry.

The first will mimic the lower classes (maybe even the proletariat) and be "left behind," degenerating over the years into nothing more but grazing animals.

The second will mimic the higher classes and continue to consolidate power and seize freedoms for themselves.

Basic income is an idealistic idea, both impractical and separated from human nature.

Two very practical reasons.

A) People need to buy groceries. What will you do when they're at your door with pitchforks, pissed because you told them to "go eat cake"?

B) For the larger economy to function, there has to be bottom up purchasing pressure at the consumer level. Walmart has to be making lots of money so they can buy cool stuff from startups (some of which eventually turn into large companies buying from startups themselves). If you just give people money to spend, that will drive the economy at the bottom. It's basically like the opposite of trickle-down economics and I think it's much more sustainable.

Also, there's growing awareness that sociopaths aren't good for society, so arguments along the lines of "oh quit whining and suck it up you pussies" are starting to get a lot more pushback.

It's a good thing I have the police and military under my thumb to quell all uprisings. If I were smart, I would elevate them to the upper class and remove their current class loyalties.

But a more practical answer: What's stopping those with (economic resources) from continuing their views that those without aren't human. That they're causing upheaval in society and their plight is baseless. That they should be locked away, or worse.

> If you just give people money to spend, that will drive the economy at the bottom. It's basically like the opposite of trickle-down economics and I think it's much more sustainable.

This goes against your first point. Basic income is assumed to mean "just enough income to buy vital products, services, and utilities." Commodities don't drive the economy and innovation. Unless, you propose a "workless wage" where the average person gets something like 70k just for being alive.

Which then, why work? The average joe doesn't care about the same things most HN users do. They'll simply stop producing the labor that serves as the foundation for so many "innovative" and "cool" companies.

So on and so forth, the economy crashes.

> Also, there's growing awareness that sociopaths aren't good for society, so arguments along the lines of "oh quit whining and suck it up you pussies" are starting to get a lot more pushback.

I fear it's a similar situation to drug addicts. Crack-down hard on the, relatively, low-level crime, instead of starting from the top. Similarly here, crack down on the most obvious, and less intelligent, of the pack and you're just strengthening the sociopath's genome.

> Which then, why work?

The same reason people already making 70K working a certain number of hours with a certain degree of effort expend additional effort to make more if they can do so: because wants are unlimited.

Of course the level of universal income an economy support varies by the degree of automation and other factors (including cultural factors), so it's best to start small, and set it up so it scales smoothly and naturally with the capacity of the system to support it rather than simply targeting a particular (basic or otherwise) level.

Wants are theoretically unlimited, however in practice people have a few set of wants they need to have fulfilled to be "content." See: new video games, new computer specs, new car, etc.

You don't have a majority of spendthrifts among the labor-producing class.

Famous last words!

> If I were smart, I would elevate them to the upper class and remove their current class loyalties.

Until they realize they don't need you, kill you, and take control. See history of the Praetorian Guard. Or KGB.

> Basic income is assumed to mean "just enough income to buy vital products, services, and utilities."

It means a lot of things. Notice I said "expand welfare" because that's a lot easier and clearer than "introduce basic income". Basically financial security is high and will continue to increase, so the question is about solutions to that.

> Commodities don't drive the economy and innovation.

Actually, they kind of do because you have to look at b2b startups and how they really represent most of the interesting companies (and value) being generated by startups these days; if you're innovative and an entrepreneur and all that, odds are high that you might find yourself starting something in the b2b space. You'll be trying to sell to large enterprises that sell stuff like electricity, cell phones, food, etc. Commodities. The commodities that drive the economy.

You know who the biggest ad buyers in the US are? Procter and Gamble. AT&T. Comcast. Verizon. Commodities. And every ad agency is a b2b startup. Not to mention "ad tech".

Enterprise margins/profits are up now because of gains from automation, and they're driving the startup boom (plus an unhealthy amount of free money pumped into the top--instead of bottom which is what I'm proposing). Eventually, that will run out because bottom up consumer demand will drop (and free money will stop). That will cause a crash. Unless measures are introduced to give people money to spend so they can jumpstart the economy from the bottom up.

> Which then, why work? The average joe doesn't care about the same things most HN users do. They'll simply stop producing the labor that serves as the foundation for so many "innovative" and "cool" companies.

You can still get rich with a cool innovative company. But yeah, if you're not doing something interesting, why work? My answer to that is, "You shouldn't, and the cheapest solution to your resulting financial insecurity is for the government to give you money to go buy things."

> Similarly here, crack down on the most obvious, and less intelligent, of the pack and you're just strengthening the sociopath's genome.

Yeah, people have been doing that for generations and are starting to see the problem, therefore looking to the top.

Keep them at arm's reach and content, and their greed will keep them loyal. I've known of the Praetorian to assassinate emperors, but only those unwieldy that didn't indulge them.

> Actually, they kind of do because you have to look at b2b startups and how they really represent most of the interesting companies (and value) being generated by startups these days; if you're innovative and an entrepreneur and all that, odds are high that you might find yourself starting something in the b2b space.

You're conflating B2B startups with B2B businesses. One is a Remora fish and the other is a Shark. The first, aides the second and gets a little in return. The second, takes the lions-share (or should I say sharks-share?) of profits.

> You'll be trying to sell to large enterprises that sell stuff like electricity, cell phones, food, etc. Commodities. The commodities that drive the economy.

They do not drive the economy. They keep it running. The basic electricity, cell phone, food, etc. are just that: basic.

> You know who the biggest ad buyers in the US are? Procter and Gamble. AT&T. Comcast. Verizon. Commodities. And every ad agency is a b2b startup. Not to mention "ad tech".

You're stretching the term commodity too much here. AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are not commodities companies.

> Enterprise margins/profits are up now because of gains from automation, and they're driving the startup boom

To be blunt, this is another leap of logic that isn't true. Enterprise profits may be up, but they're not funneled directly back into VC cash (or equivalent) for startups.

> Eventually, that will run out because bottom up consumer demand will drop

Why do you suppose this?

> That will cause a crash. Unless measures are introduced to give people money to spend so they can jumpstart the economy from the bottom up.

I'm not quick to insult, but this flies in the face of all economic theory (all the above as well) and is exhausting to refute. The economy does not need a jumpstart via cash infusion. The economy will not crash because of perpetual deflation (which you are arguing will happen via "cash running out").

> "You shouldn't, and the cheapest solution to your resulting financial insecurity is for the government to give you money to go buy things."

Where do you suppose this money will come from? What plane of the astral aether will this money come from? Value is perpetually created and destroyed everyday, if you implement a "workless wage" you will crash the economy by devaluing your currency.

lol

This statement is likely to be disputed by residents of huge swaths of the country from Flint Michigan to upstate New York.

200 years ago 95+% of all people worked in agriculture. In developed countries, now barely 1-2% do so. 100 years ago the vast majority worked in manual labour jobs. Now people are moving on to service jobs. Macro-economically speaking, those were much larger and more rapid changes than what we're seeing right now.

This is not new. It's normal economic development. Nothing unusual at all. People have to stop portraying this negatively, and Marc is correct in seeing this as a positive to humanity.

His argument is that we need to manage this shift as a society. Some countries pro-actively do so (European social security comes to mind), others do not (USA). I tend to agree with him that it does need to be managed.

What we're doing, now, is destroying whole sectors of the job market.

It has happened before, yes! -- but it was horrible then, and it will be horrible now (and now we have youtube, which they didn't have in the UK or India in the 19th century).

I don't see a lot of people doubting that someone like Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates figured out a viable pathway to success, for which luck plays(played) a role, but is not the only factor. The problem is that for every Buffet you have dozens of clowns with platforms, massive egos, and cults of personality.

I would argue that a person that has a happy home life and feels comfortable and sufficiently compensated in their work is a success. There are hundreds of millions such people. This doesn't seem overly complex at all.

Yeah, but when someone says "Marc Andreessen is successful" most people are able to deduce the criteria that was used to make that judgment. So while "success" as a whole may not have a firm definition, "be successful like Marc Andreessen" may.

It is critical to understand that the super rich are not superhuman, though some may believe they are. They are just lucky. That doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their belongings, but it's bad for everyone to believe that such wealth translates to superiority or to some type of hidden knowledge.

sports are the easiest way to illustrate this point, but it also applies to other areas.

with coin flipping, replacing alice with bob does not influence the outcome. everyone has the same odds because luck is the only determinant. no amount of practice matters. the odds alice can flip 10 consecutive heads on her next turn will always be the same as bob's.

with basketball, replacing alice with steph curry vastly increases the odds of hitting 10 consecutive free throws. most importantly, alice can improve her odds with practice.

business is like poker: the longer the timeline, the more true skill emerges and dictates success. but if you only play one hand, then yes, luck may dictate the winner.

Worship is a problem, but methodical research of the sort that went into "Good to Great" is not.

But when it comes to building a society that benefits everyone - how? That's always the question. Pretty much everyone agrees that it's a good goal, but when it comes down to figuring out "What would peoples' lives look like in a society that benefits everyone", nobody agrees.

Let's acknowledge that and stop treating these people like Heroes because they got rich.

(I'm not actually arguing that such science is shoddy, only that the perception that they are shoddy and invalid is a strong disincentive to listen to any research on this matter. It's actually really disheartening to me that this is the case.)

This sort of oligarchy is probably emergent from the way we structure our economy on a base level. What factors incentivize corporations to form into pyramids, with most of the wealth accruing on top? Can we instead incentivize smaller, cooperative-style companies with more democratic managerial styles and more equitable distribution of wealth? It wouldn't work for every business, but it's barely been tried at all, and I'd love to see the kind of SV culture that would emerge from these parameters. (I guess Valve is a notable example, but I can't think of many others. I suppose the OSS community?)

Unfortunately, I don't think telling people to stop hero worship is going to do the trick. Things are going to have to change on a more fundamental level.

Most people are incapable of managing high-level responsibilities. Those on the lower rungs assign/relinquish (depending on how you look at it) their responsibilities, and the fruits they bear, to those they perceive more capable than them. So now instead of having a smooth slope of compensation, it's top-heavy.

In layman's terms: The bulk of people who work are not motivated by the company's direct prosperity. They're motivated by other factors such as "work fulfillment," "passion", "making the world a better place", all of which don't align intrinsically with profit.

> Can we instead incentivize smaller, cooperative-style companies with more democratic managerial styles and more equitable distribution of wealth?

This is paradoxical for a few reasons. First, lead-by-many is much more inefficient than lead-by-few(usually one). See: democracy vs. democratic republic.

Second, good leaders have "ego," in the way that they have a certain modus operandi and goal they won't deviate from. Thus, if you were to populate your ranks with good leaders, it would be a shit-show. See: in-fighting nobility.

Third, incentives have always been abused. Take a look at any industry with "incentives" and subsidies. The companies are built around that subsidy, not upon being a successful business.

I agree that centralized leadership tends to produce better products, but I don't think a more democratic company would necessarily have to put every decision to vote. Hierarchies could still emerge and responsibility could still be delegated. (Again, see Valve.) But I think distributing power, reward, and responsibility more equally throughout the company would be massively beneficial in terms of "social good".

Valve is a very small, very selective company, which rarely produces new products. Despite all the overtures about freedom, there is still a central point of control that can and will put the kibosh on things if they're not going the way they want.

People have a psychological need for authorities. If you don't give them any, they will make their own out of the nearest willing "charismatic" person, who will emerge as a de-facto authority. An explicit structure is better than mob rule.

I don't think anyone believes wealth inequality is not a problem, but I don't think non-hierarchical structures are going to do anything to solve it.

I agree with you, but will the people?

History has shown that people just don't care about doing hard things themselves.

Almost like an inflationary pressure on the ownership of the co-op that might allow us to turn away from the gains continually traveling upwards long after the contributions of members have been made and they've moved on to other things.

You could still pay differential salaries if you wanted some hierarchy.

Technology has warped and dominated our world and culture to an extent it never has before.

I like to imagine a little scene: a primitive man bows at the feet of another who fashioned a knife out of a mammoth tooth.

That's more or less what we still do today.

The technological and scientific have replaced the religious as the ruling dogma and organizational frameworks of the world. Just as many folks in the middle ages probably couldn't conceive of the radical changes that would happen were religious hegemony toppled, it's hard for us to conceive of a world where the ruling technological caste loses their influence.

But what a wild world it might be.

What bothers me the most about our current age is our lack of questioning when it comes to technological progress. We have a sort of close your eyes and jump philosophy when it comes to technology--we seem to go ahead and create new technologies before a. considering the full scope of their possible effects, and b. developing the requisite social, political, and economic structures to support the shifts they'll bring about (e.g. in the case of self driving cars and automation of work in general we will have to switch to an economic model other than capitalism if we are against a very slim few having the majority of the world's wealth, more so than is already the case, which is hard to imagine.)

Of course, it's not possible to predict all of the side effects introducing new technology will have--for example, I doubt Tim had any notion of the extent to which the internet would change the world when he came up with an idea that let you view the documents your buddy had on his machine, but here we are.

Still, I think we have a bad tendency to accelerate change in the technological sphere while social, political, and economic structures remain woefully antiquated.

>That's more or less what we still do today.

100% yes. Psychology is a thin veneer on top of biology, and evolution is a slow process. Let none of us believe we are so beyond our forbears that their problems, difficulties, and sins are behind us, or that their thoughts and lessons are irrelevant to us.

Currently, about 10% of the world's population lives in extreme poverty. It was 12% in 2012. It was 40% in 1990.

The history of the world, post-war 20th century, is one of extreme progress for the lives of real people -- especially really poor people.

So, what do you think drove that change? Was it shaping a society that "works for everyone?" Or was it technology and the efficient allocation of capital?

I'd argue that it was the latter, because I can look at the world and find the places where people have remained extremely poor, where people have starved to death in large numbers, and it's not hard to see that it happens in the places where technology and capital are stopped.

Before modern markets were (slowly) permitted to function in China and India, lots and lots of people died of hunger. Way more than today. The lives of nearly everyone in the former USSR became much better when the wall fell. It's still pretty terrible to live in North Korea. Right now in Venezuala people are starving, and there are hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating on the streets.

I'm fine with "the oligarchs" getting rich, by comparison.

The factors that generate the last three are largely unrelated to median income. In fact they reliably go down when neoliberal "efficient allocation of capital" becomes the dominant ideology.

People are starving in the US and UK too. Did you know that around 15% of US households cannot consistently afford food, while more than 5% have "very low food security" which includes persistent periods of hunger or malnourishment?

Yes, median household income has stagnated in the U.S. since 2000, while both the low-end and the high-end have improved. Can you support your claim that it this correlates with "neoliberal" policies? Where in the world has life gotten better that you think is a better model? Can you please name a place on earth where something other than free-market capitalism has proven successful?

I never claimed that no one in the U.S. or U.K. was in poverty. I claimed fewer were than before, and fewer are than in countries will less access to technology and capital.

Your other point -- that people in extreme poverty can actually be happier -- well, I don't know what to say. Feeding starving people more often seems like an intrinsically worthy goal to me. I can't imagine the pain of not having enough food for my children.

>> 15% of US households cannot consistently afford food, .. 5% hunger

What food are we talking about ? because basic grains, etc - the kind of meals indians eat, for ex.(and are very healthy and pretty tasty) - are extremely cheap. So is 15% possible ?

Why would it be hard to believe that wealthy Western countries feature extreme or even abject poverty?

America had some huge tent cities filled with previously not-homeless families living in them following the 2009 meltdown.

While I'm not opposed to the idea that if you're born -- and if so much of the world values human life including and especially in the womb -- then you should have the opportunity to at least "get by" and not be per force exploited, much less sickened and killed.

While I'm not opposed to it, there is a pre-cursor of ostensibly more limited scope, and perhaps of greater benefit than just "throwing undifferentiated dollars" at a problem.

Access to healthcare. Not necessarily absolutely unlimited, spend 100K for an extra last week of life healthcare. But quality basic, effective healthcare.

If we value human life, then we should also value the quality of that life. Providing effective health care greatly enhances that quality. It greatly enhances the ability of people to take care of themselves, and their families. And their friends.

You may not live in a palace, nor anything close. But we'll do our best to help you have the physical wherewithal to enjoy the day. And to keep you that way. If you become injured or ill, you will not be alone -- and we will not let others prey upon you in your weakness.

If we -- here in the U.S., in my case -- can't do this. With all our resources and largess. Well, then, you can just go and stuff the rest of your moralizing and idealizing.

> I would have a thousand children if I could.

I know this is just an example, but here are obligations that come with children beyond the economic cost. As someone with 3 small children, a basic income for them would not incentivize me in any way to have more.

I hope you're not one of them. Because, per your attitude, I'm free to kill you and take all you have.

Make people pay for their kids. That's fine with me. Make it expensive to have kids -- an expense you can't easily get out of, like credit card debt and student loans and, hey!, medical bills, during bankruptcy.

Why are you going to make the kids suffer? If someone is that uncaring to start with, the sight of their suffering kids is going to turn them around?

Why do I take care of other people, already on the earth? So I can walk down the street in peace and comfort.

Why do I pay for others' health care, meaning those not of my family? (And I have, including personally, maybe a lot more than you.) Because the world isn't perfect, and it screws people over. And physical discomfort engenders psychological discomfort and suffering. I can't fix the past, as history, but I believe we should do our best to ameliorate and alleviate its physical after-effects.

I've observed the benefit of helping others. And I've suffered the consequences of others' inconsideration.

For those reasons, I think we should guarantee each other's access to quality health care.

It's called "insurance". That is, insurance against many things. Because you don't know who life is going to screw over. And because you'd rather spend your day with healthy people, than miserable ones.

P.S. A major point of advice in life, including from many experts, is to "move on."

Do you want to spend years in court, and struggling to find ways to pay for the legal effort, to seek recompense for a past injury? Or maybe do you want to heal it as best you can and focus on the present and future?

And, HN tends to be populated with people who are not overly fond of lawsuits and unlimited liability. Well, what is a practical way of lessening those? Provide an avenue for mistakes to be addressed and for people to get on with their lives.

As the old saying goes, "Health is wealth." Restore their "wealth", in this aspect. Under those circumstances, I think and find that most people then choose not to dwell on the past. Including in court.

But you are fine with letting people with less money die?

Universal health care doesn't mean you can't pay extra for supplemental stuff.

You can also pay for your $1M never-let-me-die insurance policy over what free healthcare provides.

What makes you worry that people would try to intrude into your decision of how many children you want to have, or how much to spend on healthcare?

Then of course you just have the reality that plenty of the love coming their way is just... well... ass-kissing for favors, status, money, or in some vague hope of some of those.

Until or unless enough talented people figure out that they'd have better odds playing the lottery than aiming to become an SV oligarch/plutocrat, there will continue to be a culture of this intensely covetous "worship", that almost inevitably morphs into loathing and resentment.

That's just the "in" people... the public at large is either subjected to intense marketing and PR, or unaware of such people.

Here's a thought experiment: what was Marc Andreesen's last idea? How much ego was in it: none, some, or a lot?

Andreessen's base point is that whether you like it or not, millions of jobs are going to get taken away and millions more jobs are going to open up elsewhere. The question is, how do we get society to be better at adapting to this change?

If you truly are concerned about building a society that benefits everyone, this is the question that should be discussed/answered.

Lol! I think this incentive-based version works better though. If the libertarian culture of Californian idealists is imposed across the board, we would probably witness the end of innovation (unless war and existential threats provide the incentive)

Even if it's broken, don't fix it.