I don't agree with visarga's first sentence. But I don't think it's childish to want a war criminal to be held to some account. More than 100,000 civilians died in that conflict, and Rice played a key role in knowingly selling the lies that lead to their deaths.
She deserves prison, and the founders and board of Dropbox deserve to be hounded for their complicity in her escape from any negative consequence resulting from her actions.
Would you please stop using HN primarily for political battle? I don't think it requires being an Iraq War supporter to point out that accounts that do this violate the mandate of this site.
I thought the Boring company was the most "obviously for Mars" project. One of the cheapest ways to create pressurized, radiation-sheltered spaces is to dig.
Because so many developers think they are unique snowflakes who are better than everyone else, and a union would just drag them down to everyone else's level. Unions are for people who work on assembly lines, right?
Special snowflakes or not, a group of majority young people won't unionize themselves if the benefit mainly goes to old people. Granted, everybody ages, but unions of today may not survive into the days when the young of today become old.
Which definitely points to a truth, obvious as it is disquieting: brutal violence lies ahead.
Seriously. Unions have been pretty violent for well over a century, as labor struggles have circulated the force of shockwaves created by obstinate dysfunction on both sides, but because of this, a collective memory of known quantities had built up.
Now, in a sudden bout of amnesia, certain mistakes are primed to repeat themselves. Others not so much, but how to guess which errors boil over first, and why, without understanding the roots of each problem?
Technology and any related social change will augment outcomes, but not always in a good way. On the one hand technology empowers mobility and learning, on the other hand, eavesdropping and misinformation.
A union won't make a company hire you. Whatever power union has, it comes after signing on the dotted line, so that particular problem would not be solved by a union.
Unlike police or muni drivers or Detroit auto works, programmers are among the most frequent job changers.
Other than Hollywood unions (where main benefit, as far as I can tell, is ensuring that you don't get taken advantage of too much at the low end thanks to minimum wages etc.) is there any example of a union for a profession where you change your employer every 2-3 years?
Theater and film are great examples of unions whose participants change jobs every few weeks or months. The unions are sometimes "hiring halls": you get the call from the union itself where to appear tomorrow morning. They also protect workers from competition: the only way new workers enter the field is when the union decides it can't fulfill its employers' needs with existing senior members.
is there any example of a union for a profession where you change your employer every 2-3 years?
I know a few construction workers who essentially work for the union. A contractor will get a job, and they'll contact the different unions and say they need people to get it done.
The unions in construction also provide continuous training for their members, and good training to boot. I've had real estate developers in NYC tell me they won't do foundation work with non-union labor because it's so important to get it right the first time.
Though the drawback is that union workers tend only to want to work with union workers. So you can't go with the union workers to do your foundation, and use a non-union contractor to do other work.
An employer I used to work for found this out the hard way when word got out that they had hired a non-union carpenter to do some custom cabinetry on an office build out (he was an expert craftsman who was not cheap, so it wasn't done for cost savings).
Suddenly it got very hard to find workers to finish the electrical and plumbing work.
Unlike police or muni drivers or Detroit auto works, programmers are among the most frequent job changers
Also unlike police or muni drivers, if the union makes it too expensive to continue to pay your wages and work within the constraints of the union contract, the company will either outsource your job somewhere cheaper, or it will go out of business and be replaced by a company with cheaper workers.
Detroit Auto Workers found this out when the Big Three decentralized and moved jobs out of Detroit and they were under intense competition with foreign car makers.
>A union won't make a company hire you. Whatever power union has, it comes after signing on the dotted line, so that particular problem would not be solved by a union.
Actually a union can very well push for changed attitudes and laws regarding age discrimination.
Something that's popular is practically by definition not on the extreme any more.
In most of the developed world the Democrats would be considered a moderate right-wing party, and the Republicans a far-right theocratic extremism party (like, say the DUP in the UK, or CHP in Canada).
What you're seeing is a ground-shift in values, and what used to be considered OK is now considered extreme, and is therefore being shifted into the margins of the discussion.
To put it in sharper contrast: if you started loudly expressing the most mainstream views of the 1700s in today's society, you'd get a lot of people trying to shut you up and, failing that, marginalize you. And, probably, they'd be right to do so.
Conservative views are treated as extreme, even though they are not and that's the point. /pol/ exists largely as a reaction to the suppression of non-progressive thought in the places where the demographic spends most of their time: academia, gaming, and tech.
There are certainly people who believe what they say on /pol/, but the vast majority of them are consciously acting as a parody of what they have been cast to be.
> /pol/ exists largely as a reaction to the suppression of non-progressive thought
/pol/ exists so edgy teenagers (and others who haven't developed mentally past that phase) can attempt to get a rise out of people by posting shallow, far-right tripe.
The level of intelligent discussion there is pitiful.
I parse your comment to mean "/pol/ is childish. People who hold those views are shallow and unintelligent."
I find it interesting that my posting discussing /pol/ - not supporting it, mind you, merely discussing it - elicits a response like this from a brand new account.
My position is that exactly this sort of response to anything that isn't "progressive" is what has caused the rise of /pol/.
Well, I've not really tried to define the term so explicitly, but I think it's fair to say that any position that is held by a majority of Republicans (or Democrats) is not extreme, because it would by definition not be outside the norm.
For example, public opinion in support of same-sex marriage in the US is currently at an all-time high of 64%, with 34% opposing. Being opposed to same-sex marriage is not an extreme position, as it is one that is shared by 1/3 of Americans. Only two years ago it was 42:40 in support. Therefore, the position statement "I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman" is not extreme.
The bottom line is that many views that are strongly associated with conservativism are likely to result in personal attacks if expressed in the aforementioned settings.
Just look at the flak Peter Thiel has gotten for supporting Trump. Why does donating to a major party's presidential campaign result in things like this [1]?
So can you do the ground work and show that a position like opposition to same sex marriage is actually frequently and casually labeled as extreme?
(I can think of lots of other invectives that people apply to it, I'm just not sure that it particularly gets treated as a non mainstream view...)
I also disagree with the point in principle. We even have a word for it when a majority gets on the wrong side of rational (and goes to extremes), a mob.
> So can you do the ground work and show that a position like opposition to same sex marriage is actually frequently and casually labeled as extreme?
I suppose I could, but I'm honestly not interested in doing so to support a casual conversation on a web forum.
> I also disagree with the point in principle. We even have a word for it when a majority gets on the wrong side of rational (and goes to extremes), a mob.
Actually I'm not familiar with the term "mob" being used that way, and a quick search doesn't seem to support your usage either.
This subthread is off of devmunchies comment about Reddit and Twitter, and the OP is about 4chan. All of these forums are global.
My point is that American-style conservatism may represent half of Americans, but it's overwhelmed in other developed countries (which, taken together, are larger in population). So much so that I would argue that in the global context, American conservatism is small enough and far enough to one side of the debate that it's accurate to call it an extreme.
>There are certainly people who believe what they say on /pol/, but the vast majority of them are consciously acting as a parody of what they have been cast to be.
I'm relying only on personal experience. I know several people in real life that are "shitlords" online. They're doing it not because they believe the things they post, but because they've found it to be an effective way to shift the narrative and to throw their political opponents off-balance.
Likewise, I know a few people in real life that actually hold those extreme and (frankly) bigoted beliefs. As far as I know they haven't really changed their online behavior, and they're not part of that in-group.
I could just as easily say that this the result of 40 years of the upper class shifting the tax burden downward to the middle class, while lobbying for the passage of laws to ensure that all of the economic gains during that period are funneled upwards towards themselves.
Telling the middle class to tighten their belt because - despite a growing economy - there just isn't enough to sustain the lifestyle that their parents enjoyed isn't sound economic principles, it's class war.
That plot would fit into, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which had a viewship in the millions) no problem.
Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence.
This is a controversial subject that's overflowing with armchair sociologists. Right now you're indistinguishable from them.
I have no problem with the possibility that men and women are different. What's unjustified is, given the powerful effect of culture on behaviour, someone making offhand claims that they know what differences are natural.
I read "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" as saying that what's "implicitly" (i.e. commonly) understood as to be the natural differences is correct. Because what has been "implicitly" understood has differed substantially across time and cultures, that's a highly suspect claim that requires a matching degree of evidence.
Furthermore, just the long and loud history of people spouting off absolute bullshit about what women are and aren't is, by itself, enough to demand significant evidence for any positive statements of what's natural or not.
>Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence.
Millenia of history is a kind of evidence. And the main answer back is "this history is the history of an oppression". Which doesn't even go to why would (all things being equal) one gender get to be the oppressor and the other always the oppressed within the same society, and with the same population numbers on each side (e.g. we're not talking about slaves captured via force here).
Natural differences are things like 'mean height', and the ability to get pregnant.
It is quite reasonable that past societies divided labor based on suitability of physical capacities for different tasks. It wouldn't be reasonable to call this 'oppression' per se.
However the structure of roles human societies has always been mediated by the level of technology. Gender divisions of labor, class and caste systems etc, have always shifted when the technological structure of production and warfare have changed as technology has developed.
Reinforcing roles that were developed in a less advanced technological society but are not necessary in the present landscape is most certainly oppression, as is resisting thought that could lead to more freedom for groups you don't belong to.
Think about that history affected our biology (due to evolution). Consider the case with food. We now have an abundance of food rich with carbs and fats, but if we eat too much of them we get sick, because our bodies were designed with certain assumptions about environment. In this case, or natural environment.
Wouldn't the same be applicable to our social environment?
Also, technology is not permanent. Consider what would happen if society collapsed for whatever reason.
Actually that's a very good reason, if not the best one.
Having been that way in the past means it's already tried. And if it has been carried on, it means it has passed the test, and it has proven useful. It also means its not fickle.
Nope. All it tell you is that it has been tried and it works for whoever is in power. Any kind of oppression that works, can therefore be justified this way, including slavery and genocide.
Just because something works, does not mean it is good to do. And in fact, having seen the undesirable effects of a practice may provide all the reason need for discontinuing it in favor of an untried practice.
You are simply arguing against the development of society.
Note that the qualification "outdated" has been added by you, not the parent.
One could have easily said "evergreen" or "tried and true" or "resilient" roles.
Also not being reliant on what's enabled by the available technology for major choices is more than about "being prepared in case society collapses".
For one, technology is neutral, it can enable all kinds of things, including things that are bad for society. What should be going should be a cultural/ethical/etc discussion, not a knee-jerk adoption of any new available option.
Not saying that this is the case here, but there's more to being logical than your critique of the parent.
If you want to make the case that the gender roles are not outdated, be my guest.
The parent brought up the idea of society collapsing. Not me. If you have something to add please do, otherwise you are just kicking up dust.
There has been a cultural/ethical discussion going on and a great many people decided that gender roles needed to change. If you 'aren't saying that's what happened here' how is your comment relevant?
All you have attempted to do here is add doubt without adding substance or logic of your own. If you can actually argue your position, go ahead, but engaging in this kind undermining suggests that not only can you not, you are aware of it.
Your other comments on this topic show that your suggestion that you are merely trying to point out that my logic isn't as strong as it could be is a misrepresentation of your view.
we're not talking about the economy, but rather a social network that everyone you know is on - all your friends, and all their friends, and everyone you meet.
How is that not going to be a billion dollar company? Like, what do you imagine here?
Email meets those criteria if you define social network loosely enough. I don't see any reason that something more Facebook-like couldn't also work in a decentralized manner.
How is that not going to be a billion dollar company?
Back then we had public utilities. In the Sixties they envisioned the Cloud to be run like a public utility. The scary thing is that this model has become entirely unimaginable to a whole generation.
Only half-kidding: they could pay a dividend to their content-creators rather than their investors. The company would be worth a lot less but the content-creators would be way happier (maybe).
See? Even if your totally out-there half-kidding, hypothetical, it's STILL a billion-dollar company. How would it not be? If the company you just described had everyone on it, it would be worth a billion. Or do you want it to be set up like a charity (like EFF?) Or run by the government?
I am having a lot of trouble imagining how your description is not worth a billion dollars, if everyone is on it. Even under the model you described.
Heh, good point. No doubt having the user base is valuable. But if, hypothetically speaking, 100% of the profits are distributed to users what do the investors have to gain? The profits can't be paid to investors or used to buy back shares. (There are still questions about growth and corporate voting rights not addressed here.)
you've just described a communist utopia. I think we can all agree that this wonderful pipe dream has not been proven to work at scale in practice. Theoretically it's a great idea of course, which is why a quarter of the world tried it.
Genuine question: given this, am I correct in thinking that if there was a big corporate tax cut the most likely outcome is that the money retained would just further inflate this savings glut?
Cutting corporate tax rates long term increases the incentive to invest. So the savings turns into capital investment, new jobs and higher productivity and wages.
Cutting one time brings back lots of capital to invest, lots of that will be paid to shareholders, who will spend some and reinvest some. With similar effects, for that year.
That's the standard ideological line, but this whole story is about how Apple is stockpiling cash, not investing.
(And yes, I understand that the cash isn't just stuffed in a mattress, but it's an important distinction that the money isn't being invested in the direct sense)
She deserves prison, and the founders and board of Dropbox deserve to be hounded for their complicity in her escape from any negative consequence resulting from her actions.