Almost every useful answer I've ever found on SE or SO has been marked down with some snarky judgmental horseshit meta-comment. At this point, if I don't see such markdowns, I assume the answer isn't very useful until proven otherwise.
Yup, first answer on Stack Overflow sometimes is the most technically correct, often refined to it's smallest elements, but also not nearly as ready to use as the third or fourth.
The third or fourth cover actual use case like solutions, of course that leaves more room to quibble and vote down, but you learn more from it.
It's the difference between answering a trivia question about a car vs actually fixing a car.
I wonder if this is a repeatable phenomenon wherein a universally-useful resource is more likely to be accessed by a wider gamut of people, thus essentially guaranteeing a judgmental response. That would mean those snarky responses really are a mark of a good and useful question.
After the world solved the scarcity problem with respect to everyone's ability to survive a normal, healthy, dignified lifespan, most of the economy continued to shift towards conspicuous consumption.
If you look honestly at humanity, the motivations of the average person are selfish and unenlightened. An internet mod enjoys authority and an elevated sense of self worth by putting other people down.
There really are some people genuinely enthused by virtues such as intellectual discovery and shared dignity, but they're in short supply and likely to be outnumbered in the population clamoring to become internet mods.
I've had a few posts removed from a SO site after I corrected someone who happened to be a mod there. And the Innocence Project fights to give innocent people their lives back because some prosecutors don't want a scratch on their resume.
I think it would be better if we acknowledged these realities more-often rather than pretending all the evil people in the world died in Nazi Germany, or wherever, and they weren't just normal people.
I think this is also why I always retreat into nerdy or intellectual endeavors. Not because I am particularly intelligent, but because the real world is so ugly.
I agree with everything you said, except that first part about solving the scarcity problem. I'd need you to elaborate there, because it doesn't seem like that's been done in many parts of the world.
Humanity currently possesses the capability to provide everyone their basic human needs (food, safe water, housing, sanitation, essential healthcare) and hunan rights, but not the willingness. People die preventable deaths because they lack access to basic, affordable healthcare while other people are getting plastic surgery. People are homeless all over LA and SF while QE printed trillions for Wall St. Doctors without Borders hospitals are bombed while Wolf Blitzer says ending war there is a "moral issue because it will cost US defense contractors jobs."
Ah, capability to feed, health care, etc., yes. We should be in a post-scarcity civilization with respect to basic needs. I seem to recall reading studies though that showed on a per-dollar basis, it was much better in the long term to boost the local economy rather than just give handouts in the form of food aid etc. However, my thought in response to that has always been that it frames the situation as though there were a choice between the two. My thinking is that if people are living in misery, poverty, disease, and death, why make this a choice? We can do both. It's a multi-decade project, but not intractable. It's also probably hopelessly optimistic, but I'm okay with failures that move the ball forward a bit.
I also think it is true that local economies have been devastated by hand outs. It's a complex issue but it's also not.
There is no real excuse here as far as human cognitive ability goes. The problem is with morality.
I think these examples show that as humanity goes forward I think moral integrity/intelligence/bravery is more important to develop than our purely technological and scientific capabilities.
