Elementary phrasing does not cut through language and linguistics - it makes it worse. As the Freemen essay emphasizes, terms like "elite" are used like "pinko", in my understanding, to delegitimize certain people even when the terms themselves are so ill-defined as to be meaningless.
That's why Freemen proposed a specific definition of "elite", before continuing with the essay.
I don't know what you're talking about when you say "problems knowable in advance ... can be solved through technology." There are many classes of problem which are impossible - travel to Andromeda within my lifetime, for one.
Otherwise, since humans have used technology since our species first started, it seems pretty self-evidence that all solutions will at least in part use technology.
All essays concerning the real world struggle to conceptualize and evaluate real problems. No essay can ever be a perfect reflection. So I believe you expressed a tautology.
I think it's fair to say that "Tyranny of Structureless" is a much better attempt at trying to describe reality than critique. You can approach your analysis using any method you like, but if you can't judge the reasonableness or correctness of the underlying data then your model will suffer from "Garbage In, Garbage Out." The critique you pointed out is, in my opinion, mostly garbage.
(1) My post was only to invite people to read the topic !
(2) People are invited to post their own thoughts
(3) I'm happy for people to have their own ideas
(4) There's no debate with me--I take no position here
(5) My only position is--some may find this of interest
(6) A summary: indicative of content, not an evaluation
Everyone has their own style of summary -- mine was merely to eliminate what might be loaded terms ('elite', 'pinko' etc) and focus more on subject-verb elements of the plot. And while there are many non-solvable problems in genral, the class of solvable problems normaly re-quires some form of either pre-conceptualization or accidental empirical discovery. The latter even then becomes the former once it is tested. But again, this is just my own experience.
Perhaps this is a good reason not to annotate HN posts! Something I try to avoid. But every now and then its good to signal some information lest people think a submission is trolling based on the title alone or unfamiliarity.
So it's good other people take interst in the subject.
[ps] I probably shouldn't have posted in direct response to your comment, as it was more a crystalized thought of my own that reading your notes had suggested. It was not posted to be a critique of your comment, although I could see how you might perceive it that way. (It would be unfair at that--as I didn't really respond to you on your terms).
That's why Freemen proposed a specific definition of "elite", before continuing with the essay.
I don't know what you're talking about when you say "problems knowable in advance ... can be solved through technology." There are many classes of problem which are impossible - travel to Andromeda within my lifetime, for one.
Otherwise, since humans have used technology since our species first started, it seems pretty self-evidence that all solutions will at least in part use technology.
All essays concerning the real world struggle to conceptualize and evaluate real problems. No essay can ever be a perfect reflection. So I believe you expressed a tautology.
I think it's fair to say that "Tyranny of Structureless" is a much better attempt at trying to describe reality than critique. You can approach your analysis using any method you like, but if you can't judge the reasonableness or correctness of the underlying data then your model will suffer from "Garbage In, Garbage Out." The critique you pointed out is, in my opinion, mostly garbage.