The Tyranny of Ideas - <AUTHOR> https://nadiaeghbal.com/ideas <comment><USER2> One book-series that engages with the feeling of being trapped by one's ideas is _Dune_ (specifically, the first three books: _Dune_ , _Dune Messiah_ , _Children of Dune_ ). Those three books are all about a person who has a great (in the sense of large, not morally good) idea, unleashes that idea onto an unsuspecting world, and then spends the rest of their life attempting to stop the very memetic demon that they unleashed.

<comment><USER3> Spoilers ahead for a 30+ year old novel.

What's particularly interesting about this idea of a 'memetic demon' is that the character unleashing it knew all along that it would be/had the potential to be [0] a monsterous thing, and spends a good deal of the first novel both looking for alternatives to unleashing this monstrosity[1], and is ultimately destroyed in the second because he attempts to maintain some sense of self in the face of the overwhelming power of this idea - he wants to be himself, _and_ maintain control of the idea that's swept him into power. This dichotomy is ultimately fatal. Only the one who sacrifices himself to the 'Golden Path' and allows in a very real sense his self to be subsumed by destiny is able to control this bloody, powerful idea.

[0] The idea of a thing that has the potential to be another thing or the potential of a thing in being is defined by a precise word in German and in Greek that I can't remember right now. Aristotle's _Metaphysics_ goes into this question (can a thing that is not yet but will be if the thing that exists now lives rightly be said to be real? Does that future thing guide the present thing? Can it be talked about as if it is real?) in exhaustive detail.

[1] The idea needs controlling because it's in part a techno-cultural jihad. Humanity needs to break out of its ossified structures to grow, but the cultural forces that have the power to do so (primarily religion in the novel) are equally capable of reducing this space empire to a series of isolated planets with nothing but memories of space flight. The protagonists want to have it both ways - just enough entropy to keep the system moving forward, but not enough to bring everything to chaos.

<comment><USER4> I think the word you refer to under [0] is 'teleology'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics)

> Memetics is the study of information and culture based on an analogy with > Darwinian evolution. Proponents describe memetics as an approach to > evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. Critics regard > memetics as a pseudoscience. Memetics describes how an idea can propagate > successfully, but doesn't necessarily imply a concept is factual.

> The term meme was coined in Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene, but > Dawkins later distanced himself from the resulting field of study.[2] > Analogous to a gene, the meme was conceived as a _" unit of culture" (an > idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc.) which is "hosted" in the minds of > one or more individuals, and which can reproduce itself in the sense of > jumping from the mind of one person to the mind of another._ Thus what would > otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a > belief is seen as an idea-replicator reproducing itself in a new host. As > with genetics, particularly under a Dawkinsian interpretation, a meme's > success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host.

I believe memetics is one of the most impactful but underappreciated ideas out there today, and plausibly explains the bizarre polarization of opinions on a wide variety of hot button current topics. Everyone perceives that their opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very few are even slightly aware that their knowledge is actually based on a hodge podge of memes, each with varying levels of truthiness.

<comment><USER6> If anything is a meme, then memetics itself is. It's no more "impactful" than the observation that people chant team slogans, recite famous quotes, or use mnemonic devices. Name something memetics has impacted. Viral marketing? Nope, that would've happened with or without Dawkins. Etc.

<comment><USER5> > If anything is a meme, then memetics itself is.

Of course it is. Pointing out that something is a meme isn't really an insult, it's just the nature of reality.

Indeed, chanting of team slogans, etc are all forms of memetic, cult-like behavior.

> Name something memetics has impacted. Viral marketing? Nope, that would've > happened with or without Dawkins. Etc.

Memetics isn't an "invention", it's simply a label given to a general observation (itself a meme) of ideas like people do not think in facts, or fully realize the difference between reality and their _interpretation_ of reality. Whether the discovery and documentation of these human behaviors has "impacted" anything is no proof one way or another if it is a correct theory.

I happen to believe it _could_ impact the world in a major way, if large numbers or people were _intimately_ aware of it, but that's far easier said than done. Accepting these ideas _in principle_ isn't terribly difficult (although plenty of people seem to find the ideas offensive), but even having intellectually accepted the principle, changing one's real-time behavior (not jumping to conclusions or mischaracterizing/imagining the beliefs of others during conversations, humbly admitting when someone points out your facts aren't actually facts, etc etc etc) is something else entirely. This can be observed on HN, Reddit, and everywhere on a daily basis.

<comment><USER6> >a general observation (itself a meme) of ideas like people do not think in facts, or fully realize the difference between reality and their _interpretation_ of reality.

People have been pointing that out for a loooong time. Plato's famous allegory of the cave. Or St. Paul in his letter to the church of Corinth, "Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known".

>Indeed, chanting of team slogans[, reciting famous quotes, and using mnemonic devices] are all forms of memetic, cult-like behavior

Next elementary school science teacher I run into, I'll have to enlighten her that "ROY G. BIV" is cult-like behavior and she's been brainwashing her students all this time ;)

<comment><USER5> Very clever humorous sidestepping of defending your suggestion that memetics aren't impactful/important.

Here's a second chance: above you say: "The grandparent comment about Memetics being so "impactful" is somewhat like English professors taking credit for the fact that we're speaking English."

Perhaps you're right and they aren't impactful. Could you share how _you know_ how impactful (or not) memetics are, say in the field of democracy. The comment you were replying to above states: "I realized I was getting more emotionally from the memes (which aren't exactly the sort of memes Dawkins was thinking of) than long-winded analysis of what was good/bad about the episode." That comment touches on something that seems rather interesting and counter-intuitive to me - do you disagree? If that person "gets more" from GOT memes than long-winded analysis, might Donald Trump supporters perhaps have their beliefs shaped by the various memes they consume? After all, I suspect you'd be quite agreeable on the idea that Trump supporters are a rather delusional bunch, would you not?

Was the election of Donald Trump an impactful event? Did memes have precisely zero impact on the election of Donald Trump (here's one I grabbed at random from today's front page of /r/T_D: [https://i.imgur.com/fwvnNfN.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fwvnNfN.jpg) Here's another: [https://imgur.com/a/TQJvDXr](https://imgur.com/a/TQJvDXr))? (And if it isn't too much trouble, when answering, please explain how it is you _know_ the answer to that question. As a hint, I will draw attention to my previous statement: "...changing one's real-time behavior...". As another hint, as a mental exercise consider how your statement "Yes, image macros can be a great way of getting a point across." can be true, while it is simultaneously true that image macros have no impact.)

<comment><USER6> I'm not saying that memes have no impact, I'm saying that Memetics have no impact. As in, the scholarly academic study of memes. Obviously memes have had an enormous impact on everything ever since the first cavemen invented the art of grunting and pointing at things. As for Memetics having an impact, well, that would be like a professor of theoretical musicology releasing a #1 charting pop album.

<comment><USER5> > I'm not saying that memes have no impact, I'm saying that Memetics have no > impact. As in, the scholarly academic study of memes.

Ah ok, I'm glad I was misunderstanding rather than disagreeing.

> As for Memetics having an impact, well, that would be like a professor of > theoretical musicology releasing a #1 charting pop album.

Here I'm quite certain we actually do disagree.

If we take the definition as: "Memetics is the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution. Proponents describe memetics as an approach to evolutionary models of cultural _information transfer_. Memetics describes how an idea can _propagate successfully_ , but _doesn 't necessarily imply a concept is factual._"

Would it be fair to say this is consistent with the notion that people don't think in facts, they think in _ideas_ (aka memes), which aren't necessarily true? Do you significantly disagree with this notion?

<comment><USER6> You're casting an over-broad definition of Memetics. Long before Dawkins, we had things like "archetypes" in Jungian psychology, "gestalts" in gestalt psychology, "signs" in semiotics. And many other similar notions that would fit what you're describing. Memes became a "thing", academically, because Dawkins was a successful pop writer. They've had about as much genuine scholarly impact as Deepak Chopra!

That's on the academic side. On the practical side, sure, marketing firms and political campaigns have attempted to hijack image captions, with varying (usually low) success. (It's not like Trump employs a bunch of scientists to post image captions on r/T_D. Love it or hate it, that's grass roots.) All of this would have been done whether people had decided to latch it to Memetics or not. It's not like image macros wouldn't have become a thing if "Selfish Gene" hadn't been written.

<comment><USER5> > You're casting an over-broad definition of Memetics.

I am, or the author of the wikipedia article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics)) where I quoted that definition from?

> Long before Dawkins, we had things like "archetypes" in Jungian psychology, > "gestalts" in gestalt psychology, "signs" in semiotics.

>> Archetypes were a concept introduced by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, who believed that archetypes were models of people, behaviors, or personalities. Archetypes, he suggested, were inborn tendencies that play a role in influencing human behavior.

>> Gestalt psychology is an attempt to understand the laws behind the ability to acquire and maintain meaningful perceptions in an apparently chaotic world. The central principle of gestalt psychology is that the mind forms a global whole with self-organizing tendencies through the law of prägnanz. This principle maintains that when the human mind (perceptual system) forms a percept or "gestalt", the whole has a reality of its own, independent of the parts.

>> In semiotics, a sign is anything that communicates a meaning that is not the sign itself to the interpreter of the sign. The meaning can be intentional such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional, such as a symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition. Signs can communicate through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or taste.

Regardless, refer to this phenomenon using whatever words you'd like. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

> They've had about as much genuine scholarly impact as Deepak Chopra!

I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have recognized and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned it a variety of labels", or that there has _so far_ been little noteworthy impact. My interest is about the _potential_ of this knowledge.

I initially wrote:

"I believe memetics is one of the most impactful but underappreciated ideas out there today, and plausibly explains the bizarre polarization of opinions on a wide variety of hot button current topics. Everyone perceives that their opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very few are even slightly aware that their knowledge is actually based on a hodge podge of memes, each with varying levels of truthiness."

If I had more accurately described my beliefs like so:

"I believe memetics is one of the most _important_ but underappreciated ideas out there today, and plausibly explains the bizarre polarization of opinions on a wide variety of hot button current topics. Everyone perceives that their opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very few are even slightly aware that their knowledge is actually based on a hodge podge of memes, each with varying levels of truthiness. If we could somehow manage to get a significant portion of the population to _truly_ realize that much of what they believe, what they consider to be fact, their mental model of reality, is largely made up of meaningfully incorrect approximations, the impact on the world could be substantial."

....would you still disagree?

If so, could you note which specific parts of _my words_ you disagree with?

<comment><USER6> I think at last we can agree on your more accurate description of your beliefs, just with the sole exception that we could simplify it by the removal of the first sentence. That is, I fully agree with the following:

Everyone perceives that their opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very few are even slightly aware that their knowledge is actually based on a hodge podge of memes, each with varying levels of truthiness. If we could somehow manage to get a significant portion of the population to truly realize that much of what they believe, what they consider to be fact, their mental model of reality, is largely made up of meaningfully incorrect approximations, the impact on the world could be substantial.

<comment><USER5> Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs " _potentially_ impactful". Except removing the first sentence strips the _magnitude of importance_ component from my statement, which is one of the most important aspects of my interest.

I wonder if I can make my meaning even clearer (more difficult to find a way to misunderstand)....how about if I phrase it this way:

"If global polarization of opinions on a wide variety of topics (some of which can be argued to be an existential threat to human existence on earth) starts to suddenly increase, and it is learned that opinions on both sides of most disagreements are based on objectively incorrect beliefs, it would be extremely valuable (possibly up to restoring the previous likelihood of long- term sustainability of human life on the planet) to find a way to get people to fully realize their beliefs are false, so that reasonable, collaborative negotiations can be established to begin solving our various problems."

In the spirit of conversational efficiency, perhaps it is helpful to note explicitly that my intent is to learn your opinion on _how important /valuable_ you personally believe reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals in society might be, and that I am happy to continue redirecting the conversation back to that _specific_ topic as many times as is necessary.

<comment><USER6> I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important.

As for this pedantic discussion, maybe this parable will help. A man goes to Huffington Post and reads an article about the dangers of global warming. Fully convinced, he goes shouting from the rooftops: "Huffington Post has the potential to be one of the most important publications in all of history! It is urgently important that we stop global warming!"

You see, that first sentence which the man shouted is distracting and confused. He should have just jumped straight to the second one. Just to be clear, in this parable, the man represents you, "global warming" represents "everyone is operating under delusional beliefs", and "Huffington Post" represents Memetics.

<comment><USER5> I'm quite sure I see what you're saying, but I'm quite certain you don't see what I'm saying. It seems like you're trying to not understand, rather than trying to understand. This is part of the point I am trying to get at.

Your analogy seems flawed to me. The Huffington Post is a fairly trashy rag that prints vague, half-informed articles on a wide variety of subjects, mostly in a click-baity form. Memetics is a label assigned to an _abstract concept_.

Could widespread public understanding and acceptance of what the Huffington Post writes change the world? Not in any plausible way I can see. Could widespread public understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration) of the concepts (delusional beliefs, reality vs perception, epistemology, etc) that fall under the Memetics label change the world? I think....maybe. If, that is, some way could be found to accomplish the "understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration)" part. Unfortunately, this seems much less likely, as conversations like this well demonstrate, imho. It's kind of a self-referential problem if you think about it, which is why it's so difficult I guess.

> As for this pedantic discussion

Oh there's no doubt it's pedantic, but pedantry is sometimes useful in non- cooperative/evasive conversations. But even more importantly, I find it personally useful to take these conversations as far as possible before my "adversary's" sense of amusement runs out. I think it is useful (or at least interesting) to learn more about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people _who do not have conflicting values or goals with me_ , or even conflicting abstract beliefs ("I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"), yet who seem determined to seek ways to fail. If you and I, who seem to be in full agreement (discovered only through pedantic dedication to keeping this conversation on topic) on what is important, can't seem to reach a point of mutually respectful and reasonable conversation, whom may I ask do you think is going to fix this problem in democratic societies? The media? The politicians?

On even semi-complicated topics, people don't really know what the fuck they're talking about at least half the time. At best they're "kinda" right. You might expect this from the general public, but when it starts infecting the culture of sites like HN, that seems like a very bad sign to me.

<comment><USER6> What's your objective with this continuing discussion? Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something?

Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept.

My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long gone.

Memetics (the study of memes) is a useful path which has apparently led you to enlightenment and made you realize we're all laboring under illusions. It's not the only path, and now that you've reached enlightenment, you should realize that Memetics itself is just one more of those illusions you're opposed to. (In the same way, Buddhists say, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.")

Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions.

<comment><USER5> > What's your objective with this continuing discussion?

As I stated: "I think it is useful (or at least interesting) to learn more about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people who do not have conflicting values or goals with me, or even conflicting abstract beliefs ("I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"), yet who seem determined to seek ways to fail."

Perhaps "find ways to misunderstand the question being asked or shift the subject" would have been more appropriate than "fail".

(When reading this, please keep in mind I fully acknowledge your above words regarding the validity of the term "abstract beliefs" in this sentence. I hope you can overlook this and accept that I am simply restating this prior statement exactly as initially written, with full admission that it may fall short of absolutely perfect accuracy in choice of terms.

See also:

[https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to- argue...](https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more- effectivel-1632402742)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

Example: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735) "I'm curious why you think a transition to a more enlightened..."

)

> Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something?

Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to (rather than leading the conversation off onto a tangent).

> Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based > on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract > concept.

Speaking of pedantry....do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?"

I have clearly said multiple times that my interest is related to the potential utility of _a widespread, true understanding_ of the ideas discussed within memetics - whether it could make a difference in the world.

> My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that > Memetics was high impact.

And I have clearly addressed the poor choice of words in my initial statement, at least twice:

\- "I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have recognized and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned it a variety of labels", _or that there has so far been little noteworthy impact_. My interest is about the _potential_ of this knowledge."

\- "Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs " _potentially_ impactful"."

The conversation clearly moved on beyond that: "I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"

.... _and yet_ , you have once again pivoted back to whether Memetics _is_ high impact, after already acknowledging you believe _the ideas contained within_ are "extremely, urgently important".

> I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using > "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long > gone.

I'm not here to win points, I'm here to have a conversation and gain a deeper understanding of human nature (in this case, why people behave evasively in conversations).

> Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There > is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have > sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are > priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's > own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus > said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father > except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own > intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with > no circular definitions.

This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! ;)

<comment><USER6> Thanks, I'm flattered you're interested in learning from me. I'm not deliberately trying to be evasive. Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as deliberately evasive. Achieving real mind-share with someone is MUCH harder than people think. Jesus said: "If two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven." I'm fully behind your call for steelman/principle of charity, in fact, it feels serendipitous, because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me better love my neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant! Jesus said: "Do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe what he meant was, don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather, assume the best in them.

Since you want to learn from me, one of my guiding principles is: there's far too much great material to read in a lifetime, so use the test of time to filter it. I'm currently reading the collected works of Shakespeare and finding it far more amazing than I expected. "A rose by any other name" is just one of many passages about names, self-denial, and so forth in Romeo and Juliet; to the point I'm convinced R&J is only a love story on the very surface, and has a far profounder hidden meaning. Shakespeare has passed the test of time. Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better than Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him.

>Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"?

That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment).

>Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to

Heretofore, I've been attempting to synthesize your comments and reply to them on-the-whole rather than bullet by bullet.

>after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important"

Again, this is like a man saying 'The ideas in Huffington Post are extremely, urgently important', because he read an article there about global warming. The "ideas contained within" are not unique to Memetics, Memetics just happens to be where you first encountered them. They've been around for thousands of years! (And as an aside, as an academic discipline, "Memetics" is just as trashy and low-brow as Huffington Post.)

>This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that!

If you think people are laboring under illusions now, think how bad it was in the year 30 AD. Caesar was literally declaring himself a god, and enforcing it with state propaganda. THAT'S the kind of environment in which Jesus of Nazareth was spreading truth-bombs. And if Jesus hadn't done what he'd done, we'd still be enslaved by god-kings today.

<comment><USER5> > Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as deliberately evasive.

I would appreciate if you could point out some specific examples of where you believe I've done this, as a secondary motive for engaging in these seemingly useless conversations is that I'm trying to learn how to achieve constructive conversation under a variety of circumstances. I've done my best to argue mostly in good faith, but spotting one's shortcomings (blind spots) is incredibly difficult (as you correctly point out).

> because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me better love my > neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant! Jesus said: "Do > not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under > their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe what he meant was, > don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather, assume the best > in them.

It's a good question. Some possible explanations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:6#Interpretations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:6#Interpretations) The first few seem off the mark, but the latter ones seem reasonable.

> Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better than > Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed > the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level > fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of > Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him.

I happen to not be a big fan of Dawkins, but might you have fallen victim to a bit of guilt by association here? Again, the importance here is not the identification, summation, and labeling of these behaviors, it is the behaviors themselves. The quality of discourse in Western nations has been disgraceful and declining for a very long time now, but something seems to have changed recently to dramatically accelerate the decline. _This_ is what I'm interested in. We have an overabundance of base materials and theory/philosophy to work from, but I propose that what's happening _now_ is different. There is no shortage of online experts (armchair and otherwise) telling us "why" this is, but very few people I'm aware of who are closely studying it with a minimum of biases and preconceived notions, and doing so with their eyes wide open.

>> Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept.

>> Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"?

> That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment).

Ok, let's try this again then, perhaps I'm understanding your perspective better now....might you be referring to the study of memetics, limited _only_ to the mechanisms, propogation, etc, whereas I am extending that (perhaps incorrectly) to include the "second order effects" on individuals in society, and how "memes" (spread near-instantaneously via the internet) has facilitated a massive increase in incorrect opinions (on both "sides" of the various divides) on a much broader range of topics (absent the internet, most people would have zero exposure to many of the contentious issues)?

Hopefully this is getting closer, but if not this is a good lesson in how difficult it is to understand what the other person is talking about even when both parties are trying as hard as possible!

I happen to be quite pleased at how this conversation seems to now be turning out. On one hand, it's very easy to view this conversation from a(!) perspective where it is clearly an utter waste of both of our time. On the other hand, I believe there is also a more abstract perspective you can view it from where it demonstrates that sometimes, patience and politeness can overcome a seemingly intractable impasse.

Once again, as I'm sure you well know, we've all been taught these lessons before ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsJnxlXepsY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsJnxlXepsY) ), but we never seem to get it through our thick skulls.

<comment><USER6> >I would appreciate if you could point out some specific examples

Well the first one that comes to mind was you seemed to do all sorts of mental gymnastics in response to my "man reading about global warming in Huffington Post" metaphor. I had thought that the meaning of that should be pretty blatantly clear and that the particular choices like "huffington post" or "global warming" should be pretty obviously irrelevant. Probably my own fault for assuming the meaning was clearer than it was. For comparison you could imagine if I responded to your "rose by any other name" by saying something like, "What are you talking about, don't you know that a 'rose' is a type of flower? Our conversation has nothing to do with flowers!"

> Ok, let's try this again then...

Let's talk practical matters. If you want to seriously survey what mankind collectively has figured out about "mechanisms, propagation, etc", "a massive increase in incorrect opinions", etc., how might you embark on that journey? What search terms do you plug in to Google Scholar? You could try meme-related search terms like "memes and ignorance" or "deceptive memes" etc., and (with the help of scihub) you might find some interesting material. But my point is that you ought to widen the net with searches related to "propaganda", "false beliefs", "misinformation", etc. For example, the latter leads to this article which might be of interest to you (I only skimmed the abstract so I'm not offering any guarantees), which does not contain the word "meme" anywhere in it: [https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554](https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554)

My sentiments here are similar to those of Oliver Braddick in the following editorial, but replace "illusion" with "meme", "perception" with "belief": [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03010066187746...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0301006618774658)

<comment><USER5> > Well the first one that comes to mind was you seemed to do all sorts of > mental gymnastics in response to my "man reading about global warming in > Huffington Post" metaphor.

What you wrote:

 _As for this pedantic discussion, maybe this parable will help. A man goes to Huffington Post and reads an article about the dangers of global warming. Fully convinced, he goes shouting from the rooftops: "Huffington Post has the potential to be one of the most important publications in all of history! It is urgently important that we stop global warming!"_

My reply:

 _Your analogy seems flawed to me. The Huffington Post is a fairly trashy rag that prints vague, half-informed articles on a wide variety of subjects, mostly in a click-baity form. Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept._

 _Could widespread public understanding and acceptance of what the Huffington Post writes change the world? Not in any plausible way I can see. Could widespread public understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration) of the concepts (delusional beliefs, reality vs perception, epistemology, etc) that fall under the Memetics label change the world? I think....maybe. If, that is, some way could be found to accomplish the "understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration)" part._

Is "all sorts of mental gymnastics" a fair characterization of that?

> I had thought that the meaning of that should be pretty blatantly clear and > that the particular choices like "huffington post" or "global warming" > should be pretty obviously irrelevant.

It's not really an argument, it's more of a "guilt by association" slur. Very effective rhetoric no doubt, but not intellectually convincing.

> Probably my own fault for assuming the meaning was clearer than it was.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my existing rebuttal, tear into it if you'd like.

> For comparison you could imagine if I responded to your "rose by any other > name" by saying something like, "What are you talking about, don't you know > that a 'rose' is a type of flower? Our conversation has nothing to do with > flowers!"

Except the meaning of that phrase is very widely known, and we have already established that we both know what it means. Your HuffPost/GlobalWarming story though is neither of these.

> Let's talk practical matters. If you want to seriously survey what mankind > collectively has figured out about "mechanisms, propagation, etc"

It seems we are still, somehow, _still_ not on the same page.

Recall this exchange:

>> (Me) "If global polarization of opinions on a wide variety of topics (some of which can be argued to be an existential threat to human existence on earth) starts to suddenly increase, and it is learned that opinions on both sides of most disagreements are based on objectively incorrect beliefs, it would be extremely valuable (possibly up to restoring the previous likelihood of long-term sustainability of human life on the planet) to find a way to get people to fully realize their beliefs are false, so that reasonable, collaborative negotiations can be established to begin solving our various problems."

> (You) I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say > reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, > urgently important.

We have more than enough of a handle on the mechanisms, etc. The fact is, on complicated topics, hardly anyone knows what the fuck they are talking about, but plenty of people _think_ they do, and this is starting to cause dangerous levels of strongly polarized beliefs in Western nations. But despite all of this being blatantly obvious, no one in a major position of leadership or influence is pointing this fact (that _everyone_ is misinformed) out to anyone. Instead, everyone continues to pander to their tribe, saying _it is only the other side who is delusional_. This is what I propose needs to stop.

EDIT: Thinking about it more, I think I'm leaving out the importance of epistemology being a core part of this message, which is perhaps distinct from memetics?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hmm. I usually like Nadia's writing a lot. This article, though, seemed to be much less "crisp" than others, and it confused me quite a bit.

Most of what she tries to describe in the initial part reminds me of the concept of "Moloch" (specifically in the sense described by Bertrand Russell's A Free Man's Worship, and Allen Ginsberg's poem): almost like a super-entity, resulting from the interactions of many individuals, but with a specific behavior of its own.

I don't thinks that it's about "ideas", as Nadia states; rather, it's the fact that molecule : gas = person : humanity, a person has personality but a large mass of persons has a behavior of its own, an inertia that you can't change as an individual.

In the second part of the article, I get the question, I am not sure it is related to the first part or not, and I am not sure whether it's important to compartmentalize, etc.

<comment><USER8> >molecule : gas = person : humanity, a person has personality but a large mass of persons has a behavior of its own, an inertia that you can't change as an individual.

It's interesting, and there's a lot of truth to it; but I really believe the truth is somewhere in the middle and I would be much more careful not to want to cheapen the heroes of the world. Certain people do have a willingness to put themselves at risk to seek virtue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The most interesting part of that post to me was the tweet about Charles Goodyear.

Dude had a rough life. Further reading lead me to learn that the Goodyear tire company was founded 30 years after Charles' death.

<comment><USER10> Wikipedia has a good summary of his tribulations. It's sobering reading if you think you are having rough day at your start-up.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Goodyear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Goodyear)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There was so much to enjoy in _Embassytown_ : the Hosts, the Metaphors, the Festival of Lies, biorigging, Immer, the super-cerebral ending. Anyone come across anything equally juicy recently?

<comment><USER12> _Book of the New Sun_ by Gene Wolfe. If you're into Mieville you'll probably dig it; I think _Perdido Street Station_ in particular owes a lot to Wolfe.

It's hard to pitch the series (4 books, but currently published in two volumes) without giving anything away, and part of the pleasure of the book is piecing together information as you go. But for more detail here's the article that out me onto it, after Wolfe's recent death: [https://www.theringer.com/2019/4/25/18515675/gene-wolfe- scie...](https://www.theringer.com/2019/4/25/18515675/gene-wolfe-science- fiction-author)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Lil Wayne example is interesting. The Beach Boys faced this problem too. Some, like the Beatles, Bowie were able to transcend it. A couple of alternatives:

\- The Beastie Boys faced this problem, and released a jazz album outside the US (I think it was eventually imported). It was largely invisible to their customer base.

\- Steven King and J. K. Rowling both used pseudonyms to publish outside their recognised genres.

<comment><USER14> I wonder how Radiohead fits into this when everybody expects them to deviate from a style.

The two albums that would typecast them (OK Computer, The Bends) are one of a kind. No one wants more of them.

<comment><USER15> why not?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ideas are fascinators and the most interesting of which will find audiences. Those audiences will not depose of those ideas easily. It's a not an entirely novel new concept. I think of the spread of a religion throughout most of human history. Stoya wasn't talking about some high minded conceptual idea when she chose her stage name, but rather something she just connected to at a point in her life.</comment>


Valve on 13 things they've failed at - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/09/interview-valve-on-13-things-theyve-failed-at/

<comment><USER2> This is what is different about valve as a game developer. They will learn from their failures and talk about them with the public. It's a constant feedback loop. If you participate in the valve community your voice will be heard. I've never seen this type of interaction from another company.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's great to see an article like this. There are a lot of people in the tech/startup community who talk about not being afraid to fail, but very few that actually talk about their own failures.

<comment><AUTHOR> And someone as successful as Valve, no less. It kind of put my own failed game development projects in perspective. Normally I don't really care where my submissions go but I hope this one doesn't get buried.

<comment><USER4> You guys have failed projects, too? Nice to know that :-)

Is there anything new coming out of you guys in the near future?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, a new project, Black Market:

<http://www.bigblockgames.com>

Beta coming in a few days.

And yes, nearly as many failed projects as released projects!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think every company learns somewhat from its failures, but I love how valve is really nonchalant about it. Their failures are not this grand secret they're trying to protect. They know they're not perfect, they deal with it and they work it out. Ask many other companies about their failures and they'll get all tight, because they think talking about their failures is bad for business. On the other hand, I think that valve understands that talking about their failures is good for business.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was there for the start of Steam, the first two days of Half-Life 2, Ricochet. Hate to say it, but those were definitely failures.

Takeaway quote from the article:

 _Because it got all the way through to customers. It's like a bug. If you fix a bug before it ever ships, it's pretty cheap. If you ship it and then fix it, it's really expensive. Those ones are really bad._

</comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone else feel that they learn significantly more from failures and missteps than successes? From my former sports years we would spend hours watching film for errors while only touching on good things. Its definitely stuck with me.

</comment><comment><USER8> They have failed at delivering Episode 3... It's becoming Valve's Duke Nukem

<comment><USER4> Granted, the Half Life episodes haven't exactly been truly episodic, but it's _only_ been three years since episode 2.

Fake edit: damn has it been _THREE_ years?</comment></comment>


Launch HN: Meeting network Undock out of stealth - <AUTHOR> https://undock.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi Hacker News! I'm David Co-Founder of Undock. Scheduling is a pain and meetings are a drag. We stripped down every component of a meeting and reimagined what a seamless end-to-end experience would feel like.

Here's the first piece what we've built:

-Predictive Scheduling. Intelligent meeting time suggestions, wherever you work - starting in email.

-Privacy. Undock will only show the top few times on any given day that works for everyone - not your entire availability.Create an account and set to private and never answer "are you free?" again.

-Mutual Availability. We are able to perfectly match mutually preferred times filtered through everyone's scheduling behavior, preferences, and availability.

-Workflow. Schedule right from your inbox, no calendar checking required. We built in interactive conferencing with agenda+notes on screen.

-Real-time availability and status in the next release.

We're building some pretty interesting AI models around the project and I hope to be able to share soon.

The whole Undock team is thrilled to be announcing our release on Product Hunt today. We've lifted the waitlist for 24 hours. Join Undock and let me know what you think.</comment>


How Email open tracking quietly took over the web - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/how-email-open-tracking-quietly-took-over-the-web/ <comment><USER2> Thunderbird supports not accessing remote content:

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/remote-content-in- messa...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/remote-content-in- messages#w_what-is-remote-content-and-why-is-it-blocked)

This seems to be a sufficient countermeasure against the kind of tracking in the article.

<comment><USER3> Anyone know if mutt does this? I currently pipe HTML mails through w3m to read them, and I'm almost certain this technique is pulling remote content, so I would be interested if anyone has some tips on improving this setup. Avoiding HTML mails altogether is sadly not an option.

<comment><USER4> Put it in a sandbox without network access. [https://github.com/projectatomic/bubblewrap](https://github.com/projectatomic/bubblewrap) might be worth looking at for that. It also has the added benefit of reducing the attack surface of running w3m on untrusted content.

<comment><USER3> Oh, that's an interesting idea! I currently use firejail quite a bit, but hadn't thought of using it to also kill network access for w3m's rendering of an html email. Thanks for the idea!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was under the impression that the email tracking pixel technique became less reliable once GMail started pre-loading email images on its own server and sending you the cached copy instead. Does anyone know if these services found a way around that?

<comment><USER6> Contrary to popular beliefs, gmail does not pre-fetch all the images. It fetches the images via a proxy the first time the user loads the email via gmail app or gmail web, and caches it for repeat opens. Also, there's no proxying if the user uses a third party app (like the iPhone app). So open metrics are still fairly accurate since not many users open the same email multiple times.

So why does gmail do this if it still allows the websites to track opens? Primarily to prevent IP address leak and to prevent the website owner from reading it's cookies on email opens (if opened on a browser), and/or cross- linking multiple emails for further tracking and linking identities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I implemented this on an invoicing app I make. The app also lets users create "estimates", "quotes", "proposals" and other documents which I do not use it on.

The reason I did this is because over the first decade after creating the app the users of the app kept telling me that clients would tell them "I didn't receive the email".

I've had clients do that to me as well, even before I made the app. One of them was a contractor for the U.S. federal government who owed me over $20k and was most certainly going to screw me. In that case, after sending the invoice with the US Postal service three times I sent it the forth time with a "Return Receipt" required. Even that didn't get my check in the mail from them because they lied again about receiving it until I informed them I had a signature saying they did get it.

Still, the only reason they paid me is because I shut down web based "Real Time Traffic Conditions Map" I'd created for the project a few days before their public debut of the app and refused to turn it back on until the check was in my hands.

I don't really consider this an invasion of privacy. All it is telling my users is rather or not their customers and clients opened the emailed invoice and it's little different than the "Return Receipt" service offered by the US Postal Service.

FWIW, it works with Gmail too.

</comment><comment><USER8> Many web mail clients (Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.) don't render images by default, and you opt to download each email's images with a button. HTML mail renders without images pretty cleanly if the alt text is included. IMO, this should be the default for all email clients, and the lack of that feature on mobile devices shows the immature state of mobile development compared to desktop.

</comment><comment><USER9> I know I'm weird, but I feel like email clients automatically loading remote content by default is a security hole.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, better limit them to opening locally generated email.</comment></comment>


GitHub Issue Drama [List] - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nikolas/github-drama <comment><USER2> "Master / Slave are perfectly acceptable words in the English language and are very well understood and widely-used term in technology. Leader / Follower as a metaphor does not describe the relationship as well. This change is objectively pointless and introduces inconsistent terminology. If you are offended by this term in some codebase then you most likely have too much time on your hands. Perhaps we can ask them to also change the name of the repo? Apple offends me and is inconsiderate because I think of Adam & Eve and the devil..."

[https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/165#issuecomment-1619463...](https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/165#issuecomment-161946382)</comment>


Mark Zuckerberg's profile on Google+ - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123/posts At this point, who can blame him. <comment><USER2> There's a pretty big difference between "joined" and "switched". This title is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> By the way, what's with the fugly Google+ URL's? Don't you agree they should make the URL's a lot nicer? There is no vanity URL either, which I'm sure quite a lot of people would like. Google has never seemed to get this. You should look at Google Sites url's. It's like 5 words in there before you even see your site's name. I wish they made them a bit more elegant and streamlined.

<comment><USER3> Interestingly, the old Google Profiles did do this, my URL was <https://profiles.google.com/corin.c.cole>

I would imagine it will come to plus some time in the near future.

<comment><USER4> They probably turned it off for privacy. If you found an old Google profile URL, then you also knew the email address at Gmail, which would render Gmail useless for people who value their privacy.

Ideally, they need to offer the option to have a URL that is different from the Gmail address.

<comment><USER3> But in terms of code it's very easy to change the system so that it lets users pick their URL - the question is more whether Google will decide to do it, and the fact that they used vanity URLs in the old profiles suggests they may well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At first, I was skeptical. But if you look at the people that he has in his circles, it starts to look more and more legit (Blake Ross from Mozilla, Pedram Keyani from Facebook, Sam Lessin from Drop.io, now owned by FB, etc.)

In this case, I'm gonna go with "yes, this is actually him".

</comment><comment><USER6> Why would it be surprising to see him on there? Dogfooding is a good idea, but in this case, there's nothing stopping someone from using both Facebook and Google+. He'd be foolish to not be on Google+, how else is he supposed to know where he's winning and where he might lose users.

</comment><comment><USER7> It would hardly be surprising if he had joined to see if there was anything to worry about, would it?

<comment><USER8> He looks worried on his profile picture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One way or another he's on Google+ scoping it out and sizing up the competition; hypothesizing the social war that is about to come.

</comment><comment><USER10> Wouldn't you do the same thing?

<comment><USER5> Not sure why you're getting downvoted - you have a valid point. If a competitor came out with a product, I would absolutely investigate it and see how it compares. Not to mention, if I were a well-known person, reserving my name before any scammer could.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> At the risk of stating the obvious, I don't think its really him, but a nice bit of PR either way - subtle.

<comment><USER12> Even if he joined, he would likely use a different name.

<comment><USER13> Why?

<comment><USER12> What would be the benefit? It would be just something else to deal with and cause attention in the press.

<comment><USER13> Well, for one, how do we know that he doesn't have an anonymous account? And for two, if he _only_ had an anonymous account, it could reflect badly on him as well - recall the Scott Adams sock puppet fiasco from awhile back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> He probably wants to explore the competition...</comment>


Garmin Ltd. - Google Finance - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GRMN <comment><USER2> Might be a great time to buy Garmin stock.

I bought a GPS unit for my parents, because my parents can actually use it (and they do). The same can't be said for an Android cell phone. I don't think the Android announcement is as much of a threat as the stock plunge suggests.

<comment><USER3> Stock prices are forward looking, think how adopted and improved Google maps will be in a few years. A big chunk of Garmin and Tom Tom's biz is being swept out from under them not just by Google's new map nav, but by the convergence of gps and smart phones.

Garmin GPS's do have easy to use interfaces - but why do you think the android map won't be?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A group from Garmin came to my school about 5 years ago to do recruiting. I asked their engineer and marketing people if they were going to make a phone, since everyone will have GPS navs on their phone in a few years. They just laughed and said no. Made me quite happy when the iPhone first came out.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Looks like Garmin is tanking based on the android announcement

<comment><USER4> What announcement?, and why would that make Garmin's stock tank?

<comment><USER5> The announcement that Droid/Android 2.0 will use a mapping/directions system based on google maps/street view, with realtime data on traffic, and real-view street-view photos of intersections to reduce the chances of getting lost/making a wrong turn.

Basically, traditional 'non-connected' GPS driving aids just became obsolete today. It'll be hard for Garmin/Tom-Tom to compete without the infrastructure google has built around maps/street-view, or licensing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 Amazing that volume is ten times above the average today; this definitely seems like over-reaction.

 _Vol / Avg. 11.07M/1.87M_

<comment><USER6> Yeah, Garmin makes a lot more than turn-by-turn driving direction devices. Marine and aviation equipment, for example.

<comment><USER7> You don't think the market had already priced in the idea that cellphones were inevitably going to displace handheld GPS?

<comment> brown9-2 Exactly. This isn't the first cell phone / GPS combo; this isn't even the first version of Google Maps on a cell phone to integrate with GPS functionality.

Come to think of it, this drop probably has a lot more to do with TomTom's earnings than it does Google.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apollo 11 Owner's Workshop Manual - <AUTHOR> http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=47367&langId=-1 <comment><USER2> Amazon on is listing this book for pre-order:

[http://www.amazon.com/NASA-Apollo-Owners-Workshop- Manual/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/NASA-Apollo-Owners-Workshop- Manual/dp/1844256839)

Release date is set for November 1st, 2009.

</comment><comment><USER3> Link is a UK sales page for a book under this title. Admittedly, the book seems interesting.</comment>


Ash HN: Is *BSD getting more attention recently? - <AUTHOR> I have a feeling that BSD platform is getting much more attention since last two years. Did you notice the same or I switched media source and more such news gets to me? <comment><USER2> [https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F02ydx%2C%20Sy...](https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F02ydx%2C%20Systemd&date=1%2F2010%2061m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B5)

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem with Google Trends is that it shows what people search for, not what people post and talk about.

<comment><USER2> Sure. But I was also pointing out the relationship to Systemd. BSD is being talked about because of what's happening to the Linux culture thanks to powerful groups like Red Hat and Ubuntu, and the choices of major desktop environments, and how it affects the software ecosystem. Systemd is the symbol of what some view as corruption. That makes BSD seem like a refuge. But what they don't realize is, one of the founders of FreeBSD is eagerly in favor of all that Systemd and other modern intrusive type of approach, and it might go the same route. Then what OS will they use?

<comment><USER3> But i have come to understand that he no longer holds commit rights, or at least has the grace to develop his plans via a branch called NextBSD.

This would be akin to Poettering and crew setting up their own distro, perhaps based on Fedora, to test and demo their creation.

Also, Even in its present state Launchd is far from as invasive as Systemd is. And Systemd is still going full scope creep ahead.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Linux only needs one 'killer' game to explode, says Battlefield director - <AUTHOR> http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/12/4826190/linux-only-needs-one-killer-game-to-explode-says-battlefield-director <comment><USER3> The question at the heart of this: what stakeholders exist that are incentivized to create a Linux-exclusive game?

Halo was XBOX-exclusive because Bungie was owned by Microsoft; their specific goal was to make an XBOX-exclusive title, and there was a very real incentive for them to funnel energy into the platform. DICE (and to a much lesser extent, Valve[1]) gets nothing specifically from having a Linux version besides the slightly larger target audience (and PR); there's nothing in it for them to spend massive development time on a AAA game and not release it on Windows + Mac + Consoles as well.

Am I missing something?

[1] From what I understand, Valve's pursuing non-Windows options to try and avoid a shootout between them and Windows Store. That's pretty understandable in of itself.

<comment><USER4> I get the impression you've missed the announcements of SteamBoxes and SteamOS. Valve do have triple-A titles, and they do -they may- have the incentive to release it exclusively on Linux/SteamOS.

What concerns me about SteamOS is their (supposed, as I don't know if it's been actually confirmed yet) Ubuntu base. I personally loathe Ubuntu, it and all its derivatives seem bloated and unstable, I get the same feeling using it as I would get using Windows Vista. Remember the extra hoops Vista introduced to get to basic network settings?

Ubuntu might be Open Source, but it's not open, user-friendliness should not equate locking down an OS, there must be -and is- a better way. I feel GNOME on my Arch install does the job admirably, so much so that friends want a piece of the action.

<comment><USER5> To be honest, if it were SteamBox exclusive I would not buy it. I don't buy exclusives. Gaming is about fun and convenience to me. Having to buy hardware always factors into my gaming, I am very content to not spend money on hardware, especially niche hardware.

I was tempted to go with a PS/3 back in the days because I could offset the cost of a dedicated gaming machine with the fact I could play Blu-Ray. So unless this Steambox is insanely cheap or provides a significant other use and does those other uses really well I will factor its cost into the game I want to play.

<comment><USER6> I was thinking earlier they might sell livebooting usb3 sticks with SteamOS and HL3 on them, alongside the actual Steamboxes. They could bundle it with the controller. Then release it for windows/mac a month later.

If they could get it to boot in like 5 seconds, and it came with the ability to play a range of existing steam titles, it might be a winner.

<comment><USER7> I had thought of this as well, but one of the major benefits of Steam (access to all your purchased games) is lost if you can't play them due to resource constraints (not enough storage on the usb stick for persistence, long load times for large games that need to be downloaded each time you boot).

Might be a good idea for single titles, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The example of Halo for xbox has the important distinction that Halo was an exclusive title.

Almost by it's very nature Linux is not conductive to exclusive software, simply because when you build something for Linux you are likely building on top of open source dependencies which have far less legal and technical barriers to being ported elsewhere.

For example most Windows titles rely on DirectX which is only supported on MS systems. If the game development culture on Windows revolved around OpenGL we would likely have seen more Mac/Linux ports of games already.

<comment><USER9> I disagree with that, as the open source dependencies of a major game application are tiny compared to the application itself.

<comment><USER8> Porting something Linux -> Windows is likely much easier than the other way around. For example you can run GTK/QT on Windows but you can't run Win32 on Linux without relying on something like Wine.

So you would need to have something that was either designed to be cross platform from the get-go , or you need to re-engineer around different APIs.

<comment><USER10> The lack of Win32 API is not a big deal porting-wise.

<comment><USER8> If you application is built on top of Win32 (or some other proprietary API)?

<comment><USER11> Games generally use far less of it than a normal GUI application would.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if at the end of the coming console cycle there will actually be no need for new "consoles" per se. That is, effectively a "steambox" which will likely just be a well designed, well integrated PC will be cheap enough and powerful enough to compete directly with whatever new console comes out.

Essentially the PC eats the console market?

Removing windows from the equation would be a necessary step in bringing down the price of such a device and would allow Valve to squeeze every last drop of performance out of a device in the same way that Sony and Microsoft do with their respective console OS's.

<comment><USER13> Something I've been thinking about is the smartphone release cycle verse the console release cycle. Valve could inflict a lot of damage on Microsoft and Sony's market share just by releasing an incrementally better Steambox once a year.

Consumers don't want to buy a new $1,000 computer once a year, but many are close to doing it with their phones. The subscription/contract masks to cost to a degree. I'm not sure what the economics will come down to, but a new Steambox once every 6 years seems quite unlikely.

<comment><USER4> As SteamBoxes are modular much like a regular stationary computer, I should think the GPU would see more upgrades than the rest, making the annual upgrade budget much lower than that of a smartphone...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Huh? Since Gamers are only a tiny fraction of the PC User space that statement makes zero sense. Linux on the Desktop is dead because most of it's common apps either suck, or are already available (with a much better UI) on Windows/Mac.

<comment><USER15> Don't underestimate the 'halo' effect (not Halo, though it may also apply) that games have on a platform. Much of MS Windows' early success and dominance was a result of having many more games available than Mac OS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If this were truly the case, it would have been long ago since we had Quake and Unreal on the platform already. Linux gaming is only going to succeed if Steam does.

<comment><USER17> Those titles were easily available, and better supported, on other platforms. Why would anyone switch to Linux to play them?

I bought my first Macintosh just to be able to play Q3Test, before it was released for Linux or Windows.

<comment><USER18> If you bought a mac to play Q3Test, surely it's not beyond the realms of reason that someone with PC, would dual-boot Linux to play a game (since it's no cost).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Linux needs to be sold in department stores like Walmart and Best Buy to explode. I think this guy seriously underestimates how disconnected everyday people are with tech. Everyday people don't understand the point of installing Linux when they have Windows. However when shipped on devices out of the box people don't need to question the purpose. (Take android's success as the key example of this.) Even Linus addresses this as the key problem with Linux's market share (or lack therefore of).

<comment><USER20> It's been done before, they usually end up getting returned when somebody needs to install Office to do their work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Haven't we been hearing similar statements for YEARS now? Yes, yes we have.

</comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if releasing HL3, on Linux, a week before Windows would do the trick?

<comment><USER23> Make HL3 an exclusive Linux title. That would do the trick for sure.

<comment><USER24> I keep hearing this in the thread but be realistic guys - never going to happen. Best you can hope for is early release on Linux.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Linux has already exploded, with Android!

Android/Linux has more than 500 million users!

(Perhaps it was meant GNU? But I would assume it was assumed this killer game would not be freedom software. Then how would that help GNU explode? No, what would help GNU explode, is more people able to program, and asking for freedom software).

</comment><comment><USER26> I nominate 0 AD. I've been quite impressed with it, and would love to see it reach widespread distribution.

<comment><USER27> Sorry, 0 AD is cross platform.

<comment><USER26> darn those awesome FOSS projects :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't think that's at all realistic without massively subsidized hardware from Valve so the linux version can be the 'best' version, or someone risking hundreds of millions of dollars on exclusivity so the linux version can be the 'only' version.

</comment><comment><USER29> Look at these numbers from the last humble indie bundle 9. Linux is ready.

Windows $4.62

Mac $6.04

Linux $7.50

<comment><USER30> I'm pretty sure that _every_ single Humble Bundle has had the largest average donation come from Linux[0].

On some, the _total_ Linux donations even beat the OS X donations, despite having a fraction of the number of users.

[0] Certainly all the ones I've participated in, which is a lot of them.

<comment><USER31> Yeah, I don't think this is a fair metric either. If anything, I think it illustrates that Linux users, on average, are more generous than their compatriots. It doesn't say anything about whether Linux is "ready" (for some value of "ready"). That said, as an Arch user, I'd love it if more games were ported to Linux (or developed there first, then ported to other platforms). I dislike having to boot to another OS just to play a game...

However, from a pure market standpoint, the Humble Bundles do point out that there's money out there to be made from Linux gaming. Niche markets can be lucrative, and it's even better if the people in that niche have money they're willing to spend. Whenever I see games on Steam that are multiplatform (that includes Linux), I'll buy them over anything else. But, I think that's also something of a confirmation bias--and the fact that I buy them on principle. (I'm not really an avid gamer, and I don't bother much with AAA titles, either.)

Of course, there is one major downside. The Linux market is relatively small compared to Windows and OSX which brings with it other disadvantages.

On the whole, I think this is a positive development. At least someone in the industry seems to be recognizing the need to embrace platforms beyond Windows or consoles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The problem with getting any 'killer' app on Linux is that most killer apps, outside of a specialized subset, aren't going to be Linux-exclusive, so there isn't any reason to go for Linux in particular...yet. Steam on Linux may shift the ecosystem enough to make it a prefered platform, but it's too early to tell.

<comment><USER9> Right. Nobody is going to make an Linux-exclusive major game. On the other hand, Linux has already taken off, just not for desktop usage. And BSD Unix is successful in gaming, as the PS3 and PS4 are BSD Unix with their own shell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Very few gamers would switch to Linux just for one game. We use Windows, not because we like it especially - hell most gamers I know, use Mac OS X for their professional work - but because it's on Windows (or consoles) all the games are. I predict Steam Machines will become a big hit tho, if the controller is as good as I hope.

</comment><comment><USER34> So who here doesn't think that HL3 is going to be SteamOS-exclusive?

<comment><USER35> My bet is Steam will offer a ready-baked SteamOS on an ISO a week before Half- Life 3 goes live on Linux-only. No MacOS, No Windows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Totally agree, if Linux' dad, who has money, would buy a studio and create an exclusive title, it would help a lot.

</comment><comment><USER37> GTA V for Linux? The first "killer" game on Linux will probably be cross platform.

</comment><comment><USER38> I hope CD Projekt Red will get to the point of releasing the Witcher 3 for Linux.

</comment><comment><USER39> because yeah , i'm going to just ditch the 60+ games i own for windows, install linux just for that one game ? oh .. c'moon I know dual booting is possible , but why bother ?

<comment><USER25> Not you. But I only play with basically one fame, okmarguably not a game, but a flight simulator, and if ran on linux, I wouldn't have a MSWindows box.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Half-Life 3 confirmed.

</comment><comment><USER40> MS Office: the game

</comment><comment><USER41> one killer game that isn't ported to Windows.

</comment><comment><USER42> don't worry, Half life 3 will do its job

</comment><comment><USER43> The comparisons drawn in this article are far from accurate. Comparing the Xbox taking off vs the ps2 is a far different comparison than of Windows vs Linux. If we are talking in terms of gaming by itself, it still is a bad comparison. The Xbox and PS3 had a comparable quantity and quality of games at the point when Halo was released. The buyer was already making a choice between two fairly closely matched (in terms of cost, available games, and features such as online experience ETC.) machines. One game MAY have been able to persuade them to purchase one system or the other, but this is a far different situation.

Windows has 20x (probably more) good games than linux, is as stable, comes already loaded on almost every machine you buy, has a far larger choice of other apps, Everyone is used to the windows experience (although win 8 changes that), and maybe most importantly - it has a user base that is 20x that of desktop Linux (you won't be able to play most of your friends in a Linux exclusive game today).

The claim in this article may be true someday, but today is not that day. Linux has a LOT more ground to make up before this article/premise can actually hold water.

</comment><comment><USER44> Get real. Linux needs a better user experience to explode. The amount of work needed to get even a 'user friendly' distro like Ubuntu up and running is ridiculous when compared to getting OS X and Windows in the same state. Simple things, like listening to music, watching video and browsing the web are harder. I haven't tried to set up a gaming rig with Linux, but I imagine it will be like trying to play games on DOS 3.0 back in the 90s. At this point, it's easier to just buy an iMac and boot into Windows to play games.

<comment><USER45> When was the last time you actually installed Ubuntu? It mostly installs itself with little to no input from the user.

>I haven't tried to set up a gaming rig with Linux, but I imagine it will be like trying to play games on DOS 3.0 back in the 90s.

Install Steam, install game, play game.

>it's easier to just buy an iMac and boot into Windows to play games.

As someone who actually _does_ dual-boot a Mac using Bootcamp for gaming purposes, and who _also_ games on Linux, the former was far more difficult to set up (installing Windows on a MBP from a USB stick is a fool's errand).

In short, you simply don't appear to know what you're talking about. The trouble with gaming on Linux is selection, not anything intrinsic to Linux itself.

<comment><USER46> I've been trying ubumtu since 8.04, revising it every year or so. Just tried 13.04 and it's the same old pile of... I encounter problems everywhere - updates crashing some program, alt+tab not working, drivers crashing, removing myself from sudoers file by accident, problems with flash, java is a pain to get going, etc. I need to do work and the OS gets in the way. I need to google a problem every day and that breaks my workflow. It's a terrible experience honestly. Very disappointed, because I love the idea, but hate Cannonical - <USER2> many years and so many supporters and they cann't figure this thing for 7+ years.

<comment><USER47> As a general rule, it's important to remember that Linux is an OS made by amateurs and hobbyists. If a 5-year old kid shows you a drawing, you would say it's great, while it's actually piece of shit. Same mentality should be applied when reviewing Linux distros.

<comment><USER48> Linux has been hacked on by some of the most brilliant men and women of our generation and powers an enormous amount of the world's network infrastructure. Calling this an "amateur" project just demonstrates a staggering level of ignorance.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rob Pike on Richard Stallman - <AUTHOR> http://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2006/06/i-cant-find-this-on-web-so-here.html <comment><USER2> As much as I like Rob Pike, that's a pretty horrible patent to try to rationalize. Pretty weak rationalizations too: They let me do the research I want, they get to patent it; And: Heaven is boring.

I suppose there's a contingent here that doesn't mind patents on basic techniques, but let the karma suffer, my momma taught me right from wrong.

<comment><USER3> Riiight. You were in such danger of being voted down when you came out against software patents on Hacker News.

I don't like software patents or RMS; can't there be a sane middle ground?

<comment><USER4> Hackers loving patents & all those restrictions?. The world has changed hell a lot from the days I read _real_ hackers notes on text files. I was a kid then & loved all that.

Update: added _real_

<comment><USER4> Those days hackers replied with facts, but didn't hide others opinions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Of course, history has shown that Stallman was correct about the insidious effect of software patents.

<comment><USER6> Hm. I'm unsure.

I think current software patents last too long, to a point where non-obvious inventions become obvious as a field develops, and too many obvious or suitably vague patents are passed as well. Clearly you shouldn't be able to patent how many clicks something takes. Whatsmore, submarine patents really are a threat, and there should be a 'use it or lose it' enforcement clause, similar to trademarks. But these aren't problems of software patents alone, these also apply to patents in general, and situation really needs to change.

However, I'm not sure I can say that software patents are _inherently_ a bad idea. I have no real objection to the creators of the MP3 format receiving income from their innovations, for example, or other, similarly complex software innovations. The current system being flawed doesn't mean that a better, more reasonable, system couldn't be made.

<comment><USER7> Patents were to cover inventions not algorithms... copyright covers the implementation of a piece of software, a patent is not needed if you look at a piece of software and copy it then you've violated copyright. There is not copyright on physical inventions, hence the "need" for patent protection.

The main issue is that sure it's great to be compensated for your work but it is not a right. Patents and copyrights are to encourage people to produce & that is all. The software industry does not need patents to encourage people to innovate, so by definition we don't need patents in software.

<comment><USER8> _The software industry does not need patents to encourage people to innovate_

Without intellectual property, why would anyone ever acquire a startup? Just copy it or poach a few key developers.

Remember, everyone's gotta eat, put a roof over their head and so on. RMS has got that covered with a million-dollar grant from the MacArthur Foundation and another cool million from the Takeda foundation. What do _you_ got?

<comment><USER9> > Without intellectual property, why would anyone ever acquire a startup? Just > copy it or poach a few key developers.

Reddit has no unique "intellectual property" of a make-or-break nature, as far as I know. Yet they were bought. There are lots of reasons to buy startups that have nothing to do with patents or copyright: to get the founders, to get the name, domain, and code, to get the userbase (same as last, in some cases), to get contracts or other associated deals, and probably lots more.

<comment><AUTHOR> And don't forget the spirit. The spirit is more important than the product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> He must not be aware of how much his bitterness towards Stallman shines through, because he doesn't bother to either justify it or apologize for it. The natural arc of the essay, starting with his "feeling of impending doom" and proceeding to the innocuous reality, seemed headed toward an ending that addressed or explained his initial negative expectations. Instead, he takes mean-spirited and irrelevant potshots at Stallman's social skills. Bizarre.

<comment><USER11> That's a rather loaded read. I read it as a guy going to give a presentation and finding out that he was going to be protested against. He was nervous about a confrontation, but the GNU folks were polite, attentive, and didn't disrupt his talk.

If someone wanted to portray that sequence of events in a hostile way, the usual course would be to not admit any trepidation and mention dismissively that some fanatics held up signs.

He might be bitter on the subject elsewhere, but casting that blog post as such seems to be reaching.

<comment><USER10> It's not my read that's loaded, it's Pike's language. He's relentlessly negative about Stallman. Whether his dislike of Stallman is justified is another question, but that's my point: he doesn't bother justifying it. His only concrete criticism of Stallman is his claim that AT&T never threatened to sue anyone over the patent. His writing manages to drip with disdain without making any other concrete claim:

"hippie pipe dream"

"promiscuous computing"

"harangue"

"I always thought only boring people went to Heaven."

"characteristic inaccuracies" (here referring to the idea that AT&T ever threatened to sue)

"bizarre form of political correctness"

"eager misguided nerds who in a healthier environment would probably be protesting the killing of rats in biology class"

If he had come right out and said Stallman was an attention-whoring fool whose ideas were incoherent religious baloney, we'd expect him to back it up. So why should we accept him using indirect language to say the same thing? I realize he was posting something he wrote fifteen years earlier, but he didn't say anything to disown or apologize for his intemperate language.

<comment><USER11> The guy has an opinion. However, he indicated he expected worse from the GNU folks and was wrong about how how they'd act.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _At one point they all applauded spontaneously when I described a feature of the system._

I really like these protesters. To me, the article suggests that if you invent something genuinely cool and useful, no-one will hate you for patenting it - even if they want to.

</comment><comment><USER4> conclusion: Even though people hate patents, they still love the technology eclipsed by.

</comment><comment><USER13> The Plan 9 crew had another run-in with Stallman later on, and much to our (the Plan9 users and devs) this one worked out in the favour of FOSS

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html>

The wave of FOSS came at just the wrong time for Plan 9. Lucent had bought the Labs and were losing money hand over fist in the tech crunch, they were taking out alternate light bulbs in the Labs building to save money! Lucent's lawyers were unhappy about removing the restrictions (you could modify the kernel source for your project but had to submit your changes upstream to Lucent - crazy clause!).

The corp name over the door changed to Alcatel / Lucent. The team was let go - mostly to Google (where Pike is now).

<http://www.proweb.co.uk/~matt/plan9/curse_of_glenda.html>

Still, Plan 9 From Bell Labs lives on, even with its patents copied into Linux (private namespaces). We'll wait for Oracle to use them for MySQL and raise the submarine!!

</comment><comment><USER14> Today's software environments are the result of a huge amount of creativity. Certainly there are many, many things in them that are valid patentable ideas.

</comment><comment><USER15> Richard Stallman, in an alternate universe, trades places with Turd Blossom.</comment>


Announcing Dart 2.1 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/dartlang/announcing-dart-2-1-improved-performance-usability-9f55fca6f31a <comment><USER2> > we're looking into our support for Unicode strings

What does that mean exactly?

<comment><USER3> [https://github.com/dart-lang/language/issues/34](https://github.com/dart- lang/language/issues/34)</comment></comment>


An actionable petition for Gun Control - <AUTHOR> http://wh.gov/RRrR

<comment><AUTHOR> I put this together after reading four other petitions which are getting shared wildly which lack any structure or goals. I realize we discuss tech/etc, but this is also a place where we've joined together on really big issues that impact us and our children.

Here are some of the headlines on the petitions:

\- "Create a national commission to review our gun control laws"

\- "Begin a national conversation on sensible gun control"

\- "Start the process to enact Federal Gun control laws"

As everyone here knows, you can't get shit done without goals. We need to stop asking lawmakers to converse and start telling them what we will support.

Help!

<comment><USER2> Be careful that you aren't trying to push a specific solution due to a knee- jerk reaction to today's events.

I've always been on the fence about gun control. There's good and bad parts (as with everything). However, bullet control is something I can totally agree with.

Please don't downvote the following, but let me be the jerk in the audience that adds the basest of answers to your statements:

 _\- "Create a national commission to review our gun control laws"_

Look to Canada for the national gun registry, or any American commissions that are setup to investigate Bad Things (tm) that have happened. Most of the time it seems that money is spent and nobody is better off.

 _\- "Begin a national conversation on sensible gun control"_

Sensible people don't gun down innocents. Therefore can I logically conclude that sensible gun control won't apply to insensitive people?

 _\- "Start the process to enact Federal Gun control laws"_

There are laws against making and using bombs, and yet bombs still go off. That being said, bombs don't go off everyday, and thus each bomb that explode makes the news because it is such a rare occurrence. This is actually a good thing, because if it were happening all the time, we'd be a little more desensitized to it. Bombs aren't the problem, just like guns aren't the problem. Why? Because bombs and guns don't kill people by themselves (bear with me...). You have to look towards helping people that are willing to use those bombs and guns on people, and that may be a better deterrent to mass killings than any gun control legislation can ever be.

Edit: sadly, this just came over the wire and validates my point. Man slashes 22 children with a knife. Should we institute senisible knife control, or should we start looking at _why_ people do these things? [http://www.inquisitr.com/438276/man-slashes-22-children- with...](http://www.inquisitr.com/438276/man-slashes-22-children-with-knife- in-china/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The petition that ended up getting 25K required votes was pretty lame. My hope was just to get a bunch of people to agree on something that's more specific.

BTW, I would never down vote someone for disagreeing with me :) Thanks for joining the discussion.

And you're right, it was a knee jerk reaction; but I would've regretted doing nothing much more than having my petition fail to get a ton of traction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Sorry, but why is this on HN?

<comment><AUTHOR> I answered that in my comment. I realize it's not a story about Instagram or Big Data, but it's more important to every American in this community. Many of us have, or will have children and we've had a tremendous loss today.

Communities work together to solve problems. With the support of this one, we can influence a massive change.

Maybe I'm too emotional. I apologize if this link ruined your experience on HN today.

<comment><USER4> I am 100% with you on this. HN should not be only for Tech conversations. It is the community built by the people and we all have emotions. We are all human beings first.</comment></comment></comment>