Humans are simply NOT designed to _be_ happy, we are designed to _search_ for happiness.
Any genes that makes us totally content have been wiped out by millions of years of evolution. We will never simply "be happy". Happiness will always be just around the corner. Any sense of happiness, fulfillment or content that you have ever felt are all bait and lure created by the mind so that you remember to desire for more.
I understand the article talks about more than that. However, to me, the fact that people is not happy is not particularly interesting.
OT: I think the cause of the wealth gap is much simpler. It is the stock market. I imagine a society where there is no stock market, but instead everyone invest in their local economies. We would probably be growing much slower, but who cares?
> OT: I think the cause of the wealth gap is much simpler. It is the stock market. I imagine a society where there is no stock market, but instead everyone invest in their local economies. We would probably be growing much slower, but who cares?
In our real-world Matrix, in which we are all part of Keynesian economics, you just took the red pill and discovered the existence of Austrian economics (and the stranglehold that Keynesians have over the world and anybody who proports to be an Austrian)
You are discovering that at some past point the USA was distorted to become the host for the biggest Keynesian economic experiment ever. I'm not even sure how it was even foisted upon people with such little regard. Is there any surprise that in a Keynesian system nobody ever feels fulfilled or happy? The whole point of the system is that constant growth and inflation are necessary parts of economics. You literally have to keep your wealth flowing in market ventures. Who's going to have time to stop and use wealth to improve cities and communities (unless it's part of business venture)?
There's one word I use and hope everyone learns: 'siesta'. A culture that has siesta cannot co-exist with a culture that does not. These are just different words for 'a Keynesian economic system cannot co-exist with an Austrian system.'
"Humans are simply NOT designed to _be_ happy, we are designed to _search_ for happiness."
If that were true, then all humans and the people in all cultures would be equally unhappy. And everyone would be equally unhappy all the time. But they are not, partly because of people's expectation levels.
That assumes that the cultures have similar conditions for striving towards happiness. I would not say this is the case, both for economic and idealistic reasons.
In what paradise do you live in? On average, people are equally unhappy. Why do you think there’s a saying that ‘money doesn’t buy happiness’? You could be rich, you could be poor, you could be healthy, you could be a cripple, you’ll still feel meh, on average, about the whole life business.
Happiness is an extreme, like sadness is another. You dip into those states for a bit, the homeostasis returns you to the middle. Now, we could discuss if anyone is content or not. The West sells happiness, the East tried to teach contentment. They are very different things.
Good writing, the thoughtful selection of facts and stats paints a clear picture, which in this case takes the form of a question, actually several questions.
> “Middle class” stopped being an economic description a long time ago. It became an identity > “Middle class” has become a psychological container that absorbs all of this anxiety
True, identity politics is a key part of political psychology, it's much more than race and gender.
> They’re watching the quality decline while paying more for it.
Too few talk about it, good to see it here. Of course, this is profit driven, it's good for profits but where do the profits go? Not in productive investments, which would bring prices down and quality up, but neither is happening. The only quick cure I can see is seriously progressive corporate taxation... but reality is now being driven in the opposite direction.
99% of people don't care about 99% of things
1% of people really care about 1% of things
So we get people complaining about things but there is no market for it.
I can guarantee you the average people does not care if a laptop have 4gb or 8gb or 32gb memory, it doesn't mean anything other than the number is bigger it is supposedly better.
Now apply this to every single item that you see. The table fan that I have right now is probably poorly designed piece of crap, but its good enough for me?
Nice article. Good points that seem to hit home on a lot of fronts.
There will probably be a lot of comments saying it’s all wrong. Everyone is the wealthiest they have ever been. They have gotten 5 job offers after applying to 5 companies. Food prices are historically low, and so is fuel for that matter. You should be retiring at 55 and if you’re not then you’re doing something wrong.
Some interesting stuff with a lot of LLM tells (part that actually matters, quietly, etc) which makes me skim instead of read.
Llm content can be good, but if I can't tell if it's slop or not at first glance (eg rent $800/year looked sus) I'm going to assume slop until someone I trust reads it and tells me it isnt.
I can’t speak to the correctness of the numbers, but while it’s not particularly groundbreaking the analysis as a whole seems human and I enjoyed it. It’s got some tells that suggest LLM editing but is much more digestible than pure slop, at least.
> This particular article is reported as 100% AI-generated by pangram
Your pangram is wrong, most likely deliberately so, there's material interest to train LLM-detecotrs to reject and taint everything that doesn't agree with the mainstream "alignment" constraints. This well written article is precisely such a case.
If you want to exonerate pangram, ask it to give you the prompt that generated the article. Or you supply that prompt yourself and tell us to which LLM to submit it.
It's a simple proof procedure, invented by myself, for the purpose of stopping the anti-llm SLOP which is being pushed on the web with a heavy hand. The offenders shall be shamed and remembered.
Humans are simply NOT designed to _be_ happy, we are designed to _search_ for happiness.
Any genes that makes us totally content have been wiped out by millions of years of evolution. We will never simply "be happy". Happiness will always be just around the corner. Any sense of happiness, fulfillment or content that you have ever felt are all bait and lure created by the mind so that you remember to desire for more.
I understand the article talks about more than that. However, to me, the fact that people is not happy is not particularly interesting.
OT: I think the cause of the wealth gap is much simpler. It is the stock market. I imagine a society where there is no stock market, but instead everyone invest in their local economies. We would probably be growing much slower, but who cares?
> OT: I think the cause of the wealth gap is much simpler. It is the stock market. I imagine a society where there is no stock market, but instead everyone invest in their local economies. We would probably be growing much slower, but who cares?
In our real-world Matrix, in which we are all part of Keynesian economics, you just took the red pill and discovered the existence of Austrian economics (and the stranglehold that Keynesians have over the world and anybody who proports to be an Austrian)
You are discovering that at some past point the USA was distorted to become the host for the biggest Keynesian economic experiment ever. I'm not even sure how it was even foisted upon people with such little regard. Is there any surprise that in a Keynesian system nobody ever feels fulfilled or happy? The whole point of the system is that constant growth and inflation are necessary parts of economics. You literally have to keep your wealth flowing in market ventures. Who's going to have time to stop and use wealth to improve cities and communities (unless it's part of business venture)?
There's one word I use and hope everyone learns: 'siesta'. A culture that has siesta cannot co-exist with a culture that does not. These are just different words for 'a Keynesian economic system cannot co-exist with an Austrian system.'
"Humans are simply NOT designed to _be_ happy, we are designed to _search_ for happiness."
If that were true, then all humans and the people in all cultures would be equally unhappy. And everyone would be equally unhappy all the time. But they are not, partly because of people's expectation levels.
That assumes that the cultures have similar conditions for striving towards happiness. I would not say this is the case, both for economic and idealistic reasons.
In what paradise do you live in? On average, people are equally unhappy. Why do you think there’s a saying that ‘money doesn’t buy happiness’? You could be rich, you could be poor, you could be healthy, you could be a cripple, you’ll still feel meh, on average, about the whole life business.
Happiness is an extreme, like sadness is another. You dip into those states for a bit, the homeostasis returns you to the middle. Now, we could discuss if anyone is content or not. The West sells happiness, the East tried to teach contentment. They are very different things.
Presumably they're from one of the happy countries that you believe don't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Good writing, the thoughtful selection of facts and stats paints a clear picture, which in this case takes the form of a question, actually several questions.
> “Middle class” stopped being an economic description a long time ago. It became an identity > “Middle class” has become a psychological container that absorbs all of this anxiety
True, identity politics is a key part of political psychology, it's much more than race and gender.
> They’re watching the quality decline while paying more for it.
Too few talk about it, good to see it here. Of course, this is profit driven, it's good for profits but where do the profits go? Not in productive investments, which would bring prices down and quality up, but neither is happening. The only quick cure I can see is seriously progressive corporate taxation... but reality is now being driven in the opposite direction.
What's odd to me is that companies don't seem to be targeting the niche anymore?
When there's no cheap but ok product, common sense would dictate that somebody would try to fill that niche.
Is everything a monopoly now?
99% of people don't care about 99% of things 1% of people really care about 1% of things
So we get people complaining about things but there is no market for it. I can guarantee you the average people does not care if a laptop have 4gb or 8gb or 32gb memory, it doesn't mean anything other than the number is bigger it is supposedly better.
Now apply this to every single item that you see. The table fan that I have right now is probably poorly designed piece of crap, but its good enough for me?
Nice article. Good points that seem to hit home on a lot of fronts.
There will probably be a lot of comments saying it’s all wrong. Everyone is the wealthiest they have ever been. They have gotten 5 job offers after applying to 5 companies. Food prices are historically low, and so is fuel for that matter. You should be retiring at 55 and if you’re not then you’re doing something wrong.
Some interesting stuff with a lot of LLM tells (part that actually matters, quietly, etc) which makes me skim instead of read.
Llm content can be good, but if I can't tell if it's slop or not at first glance (eg rent $800/year looked sus) I'm going to assume slop until someone I trust reads it and tells me it isnt.
I can’t speak to the correctness of the numbers, but while it’s not particularly groundbreaking the analysis as a whole seems human and I enjoyed it. It’s got some tells that suggest LLM editing but is much more digestible than pure slop, at least.
This particular article is reported as 100% AI-generated by pangram: https://www.pangram.com/history/52f51cff-9166-4b8e-ab2e-39fd...
I assume the author found the data sources and did some editing, and they have a few other articles that appear more human-written.
> This particular article is reported as 100% AI-generated by pangram
Your pangram is wrong, most likely deliberately so, there's material interest to train LLM-detecotrs to reject and taint everything that doesn't agree with the mainstream "alignment" constraints. This well written article is precisely such a case.
If you want to exonerate pangram, ask it to give you the prompt that generated the article. Or you supply that prompt yourself and tell us to which LLM to submit it.
It's a simple proof procedure, invented by myself, for the purpose of stopping the anti-llm SLOP which is being pushed on the web with a heavy hand. The offenders shall be shamed and remembered.
Having a comment on every post about whether or not it’s written by AI needs need to be added to the HN Guidelines.
Read it. Don’t read it. AI written. Not AI written. Who cares. You don’t need to tell us.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]