These comments just reek of the silicon valley tech-bro myth that because you're good with computers you must know better than the millions of brilliant smart people in $INDUSTRY. The absolute arrogance.
This theme is itself older than dirt. Socrates had already noticed this problem back in the day:
"At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom (...)"
And yet, in every 100 bullshit tech-bro commenters, there are 10 who are actually getting really interested in the subject and taking the time to check their old Bio notes, research opposing viewpoints, or maybe even bring something new to the table.
Hating is easy. All you have to do is point fingers at people and tell them they know nothing. 100% of the time you'll be right.
I've always seem this kind of criticism of the "tech bubble" as a great endorsement of the tech community. Where else do you see people so interested in so many subjects that they have to be constantly reminded they are speaking outside their expertise?
Am I just not aware of the HN equivalent for medical doctors?
Good solutions can often be left on the table, even by experts in $INDUSTRY, apart from whether they're experts or not; it's often a systemic thing. It's perfectly possible for an intelligent, rational person who is good at thinking about large and complex systems (who are overrepresented in the tech industry) to have an insight (that individuals in that industry might already have had) about things outside their own industry.
Your relevant article doesn't even get the first paragraph right. The Efficient Market Hypothesis doesn't mean eg that markets result in efficient use of resources or societally efficient/optimal outcomes, which the author seems to imply.
Well, the idea of the EMH (as I understand) is that the stock prices for things should be at an optimal price already and trying to beat market prices is basically a game of chance. Since one of the examples he gives is about the stock market and investing, I don't think his offhand statement is that far off.
More importantly, that's not really Central to the argument of the book he's reviewing or the argument of his post itself, it's a mostly irrelevant detail that you've picked on for no discernable reason.
> Eliezer Yudkowsky’s catchily-titled Inadequate Equilibria is many things. It’s a look into whether there is any role for individual reason in a world where you can always just trust expert consensus. It’s an analysis of the efficient market hypothesis and how it relates to the idea of low-hanging fruit. It’s a self-conscious defense of the author’s own arrogance.
And then quote again the only reference to the EMH:
> It’s an analysis of the efficient market hypothesis and how it relates to the idea of low-hanging fruit.
How, just how can you say something 'bedobi upthread? It's frankly a "fake news" level comment. I hate those, because it looks legit enough that people will take the lie at face value.
"At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom (...)"