I would probably add some major points to this synopsis. The bullet was believed to have been on Connally’s stretcher. It is the “magic bullet”. The pristine bullet that was supposed to have hit JFK and Connally both. The assumption here is that it did not penetrate through JFK. That it came from the wound in his back. This would upend the investigative findings that the bullet in this back was responsible for the neck wound and the injury to the governor. It’s a rather drastic change to the record.
To add to that. The author details how this new detail subsequently alters the version of events. Namely it suggests that the bullet that hit JFK in the back and hit Connally were two different bullets and that they could not have been fired at that rate (the rate suggested by the video evidence) with the weapon used by Oswald
The stories all say that the FBI reported the minimum time to fire that rifle was 2.25 seconds. How was that determined? How can a supposedly experimental result like that have no error bars? Was it determined by repeated firings of the gun found in the sniper's nest, or by another similar gun presumed to be an exact duplicate (of a 20-year old mail order gun?) for purposes of that measurement? It is known that Oswald spent some considerable time (maybe and hour or several, I don't remember) 'dry firing' the rifle the night before. Could he perhaps have developed speed superior to that of whomever the FBI asked to do that experiment? Has the 2.25 second minimum ever been replicated? How could the person trying to fire the gun as fast as possible for the FBI ever have as much adrenaline flowing as Oswald, the man who had previously tried and failed to kill General Walker must have had.
Didn't the same thing happen to one of his relatives/descendants at a hotel in California? One guy went down for it but there were multiple firings from seperate angles and placements and witnesses reported hearing multiple shots from different orientations?
So the shooter was working with Oswald, or it was a coincidence? I'd like to know who would sign up for anything with Oswald -- probably the most unreliable and untethered person you would have been able to find in the SW USA at the time.
All of these conspiracy theories would die if those taking them seriously would just sit down and read the Warren report. If you can then find something specific in the evidence or conclusions that is wrong or illogical or seems like it was covered up in the report, please point it out.
This very article points out Arlen Specter heavily influenced people on the ground during the day of the assassination. This behavior is well-documented. Why do you take the Warren Report as gospel?
“ Arlen Specter, who had traveled to Dallas to take Tomlinson’s deposition in March 1964, was thunderstruck when Tomlinson relayed this scenario. To judge from a transcript of that conversation, Specter spent much of the remainder of his time with Tomlinson essentially trying to talk him out of his recollection, causing a distressed Tomlinson to say he just was not sure about his memory.
But the Q&A itself clearly suggests that Tomlinson, unprompted and unbadgered, had a cogent recollection that a bullet, wherever else it ultimately ended up, had come from the stretcher that had already been left in the hall in front of the men’s room.
In its final report, the Warren Commission mentioned nothing about this detail from Tomlinson’s account. Instead, the panel largely dismissed Tomlinson’s testimony, writing that even though he was “not certain whether the bullet came from the Connally stretcher or the adjacent one,” the commission “has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor’s stretcher.”
As sibling points out, Oswald may have been a scapegoat or patsy.
One potential conclusion is Oswald as the patsy for the real assassin. So nobody was "working with him" except in the sense of wanting him to take the fall.
Yes, and I said as much. All DSLs are abstractions to some sort of code that does some action. What I'm saying is that we have examples of bad DSLs, and good DSLs, and perhaps by focusing between them we can come up with some useful information about what distinguishes one from the other.
To me, that's a much more interesting (and useful!) discussion than just piling onto the DSLs are awful bandwagon, and I also think it's a flaw in any argument put forth in that argument that needs to be addresses before I can accept it.
You’re comparing workers in two vastly different markets to workers in the same market. In the US, wages for one class of employee have exploded as wages for the rest have stagnated.
Market is a term that can be used to describe “an area or arena in which commercial dealings are conducted”
You can absolutely refer to the US economic market or African market and the participants there in. If not I would love a reference to explain otherwise.
Of course different kinds of labor receive varying compensation and these things depend on the level of skill and demand. This isn’t a question of whether everyone should be paid equally. It’s a question of how to resolve growing income disparities between top earners and low earners, specifically asymmetric income growth. Top earner income is rising at amazing rates while low earners are seeing meager increases. This has been ongoing for decades. There is an entire discussion on it here so I don’t think there needs to be any more elaboration.
Irrelevant and ultimately arbitrary distinction. Is it bad for certain people to have too much money or not?
Consider that Americans waste more energy and generate more greenhouse gasses that citizens in other, lower emitting countries pay for - we are all on the same planet.
Ultimately these discussions devolve to people just being bitter others having more than them.
What’s arbitrary is your choice of argument. You completely reject my point with a hand wave and make this a comparison between developed and under developed/developing nations
Your point of saying the question is between if someone makes too much is obtuse and, honestly, naiive because the concern is does someone make too much in light of the environment they exist in. If the money they make in their market outpaces and outstrips those of others involved in the same market to an unreasonable extent then that is a problem. It means the market is not being fairly compensatory to those who contribute. This is seen in stagnant wage growth across sectors. This is seen in younger generations inability to purchase homes
But let’s make this about how people on America make more than people in Africa as though such a reductive and myopic straw man addresses the real issue at hand here. No one here. No one. Is saying people in Africa should be poor or not earning a wage that is compensatory to wha they contribute to the world economy. Blood diamonds, cocoa, fishing, etc etc. but your pretending this isn’t a well discussed issue is neglectful of reality
The poster you’re responding to is pretty laser focused on inserting a statement about the overwhelming might of their intellect into the comments on this article. This isn’t so much a discussion about compensation but more a deft display of nth dimensional chess that can only be engaged in by neigh and other titanic geniuses that agree with them.
I stand corrected. Your musings about how to solve housing in the health care CEO compensation thread have convinced me that you are not just posting online to sound smart
I wonder who's spending the PR and lobbying money to prevent all these wonderful solutions from being enacted, and when people "just vote" for these solutions anyway, buying politicians who stop good bills, make voting harder or just ignore the voters.
Taxing the rich is less about the money, and more about the power it buys.
This sort of defeatist thinking is a plague in America. Consider local city councils who decide on approving special permits for housing. You might opt out from voting and some nimby joins and whoops there is another huge development that doesn’t happen, meanwhile rent continues to increase.
I vote. I participate in local politics. And yet, decade after decade, my voice is overridden by the desires of the ultra-wealthy. Where I live, developers run the city, with many council members literally working for development firms for their day jobs, and yet rent continues to increase. The developers are making a killing out there, they aren't struggling to afford their tenth condo building like the individuals and families struggling to find a rental within their price range.
>> You might opt out from voting and some nimby joins and whoops there is another huge development that doesn’t happen, meanwhile rent continues to increase.
I was directly replying to this accusation that I'm to blame for idly standing by whilst nimbys oppress the developers. I respond that none of that lines up with my local situation, and yet your boogeyman of rent increase is ever-present.
By your own admission it seems there are few nimbys and plenty of development. Voting alone will not stop rent increasing. My point was there is a very particular class of issue that can be prevented.
> ... [complaining] instead of just voting, which would solve most of their issues.
You presented "just voting" as a panacaea. You've retreated to the "[single] very particular class of issue" while sounding very triumphant that I'm the fool. Classic motte&bailey.
I don't know about where you live, but I've never had more than one to three opportunities to "just vote" per year. I spend the rest of the time "complaining."
There are hosts of measurable problems with massive wealth inequality. You paint is as one person “just having more”, but that’s a ridiculous reduction.
It’s actually one person having more than literally a billion other people combined, and THATS a problem
You think we can solve problems otherwise but you never explain what is wrong with income ceilings. Why can't we build more houses and our a ceiling on income.
Here's a dirty secret in case you say all the billionaires will run away with their wealth. They aren't worth much.
Bezos isn't Amazon and if he was never born those people would work somewhere and the online store market would be divided somehow.
Billionaires harness labor and capture demand they create little of it then most of the benefits accrue to people who buy things not build things.
The version of it's a wonderful life starring Bezos has him stumbling around Bedford falls marveling that virtually nothing has changed and terminates with him begging Clarence to put him back because he misses his yacht.
Regards your edit. I don’t have magical numbers to give you. I’m curious if you think that makes me wrong.
But what I would like to see is a ratio where workers can buy a home, have a family, have some level of leisure, and be able to afford healthy food. That is not a reality today for people directly participating in the worlds largest market.
And also one that confers some sense of fairness. Tell me how this is at all fair to workers?
My point is that home ownership isn't something that workers in even some of the most enlightened countries have. In contrast, there's incredibly high home ownership in some places that have dubious quality of life.
And so it begs the question why home ownership is voiced as such an important need of workers? I would argue that the incentive structures should be more aligned around good shelter.
Home ownership has been advertised and indoctrinated in the psyche as The American Dream, but I would question that dream...
The vast majority of those countries have large inequality gaps. The only ones that don’t are listed under countries that have higher rates of home ownership
I’m not even about to begin to touch the notion that home ownership, which has been a staple of human history since time immemorial, is not important. That strikes me as a comment waayyy to deep in the kool aid
So now we’ve moved to comparing CEOs in different industries? Your own post compares executives to workers and workers to African workers. The post here talks about CEOs making vast additional sums while workers are getting pinched. Why are we suddenly comparing CEOs in healthcare to CEOs in other markets?
In fact it’s incredibly ironic considering the same people being addressed here, I.e. executives are major contributors to the exploitation of workers in the developing world. It’s the general population that has to learn about then address these issues and nothing would change if executives were left to their devices.
That's an interesting attempt to deflect from the income disparity between those in executive positions to those that work for them. Even in tech, while the salaries of tech workers is high it's nothing compared to the execs.
But let's follow the deflection. Instead of monetary disparity, lets look at energy waste disparity. It was recently shown that the top 10% wealthiest Americans contribute to 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the country. As you said, we are all on the same planet. just because they have managed to grab a bigger piece of the pie shouldn't mean that they get to pollute the planet more than anyone else. In both cases the mindset needs to change and those at the top maybe need to be a little less greedy overall.
> That's an interesting attempt to deflect from the income disparity between those in executive positions to those that work for them. Even in tech, while the salaries of tech workers is high it's nothing compared to the execs.
That's quite the arbitrary line to draw. Different roles have different labor markets. If you're a software engineer you are probably getting paid 10 times more than an EA.
> It was recently shown that the top 10% wealthiest Americans contribute to 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the country.
To be in the top 10% in America in terms of wealth, your net worth needs to be ~$850k.
To be in the top 10% in America in terms of wages, your annual comp needs to be ~$175.
That means probably most senior software engineers are in that bracket - https://www.levels.fyi/
When wealth inequality within a society is often a contributing factor to revolution and societal collapse, it's not an irrelevant factor.
Your stance is fine and logical, but most people don't feel the same. The difference between your wealth vs a poor African, vs your lack vs a rich American, is that you have the ability to collectivize and reach that rich American physically (not advocating violence, but pointing out that revolutions are violent).
I agree that Americans should also keep this in mind, when we as a country deal with the global poor. We're richer, but they have numbers. Not wise for us to fly too high above them, without using that wealth to benefit them too.
I would argue that it is making wealth inequality a political issue and outrage around it is often a contributing factor for revolution.
It is also worth noting that the results of those revolutions are often worse for both the rich and the poor. There's a long list of countries that have destroyed productive but unequal economies and replace them with those that are worse, and usually unequal but on a different axis.
People like to talk about the French Revolution with Eat the Rich slogans, and forget that it left everyone worse off, led to dictatorship, and eventually everyone coming back around to realizing the old system wasn't so bad.
Wealth inequality affects the people, the polis, how could it not be political? I am not arguing for revolution, I am saying severe wealth inequality is a contributing factor to something I would rather avoid. No American should want our poor so desperate they resort to revolution. No American should want our government to unequally oppress the global poor. Revolution is a product of unequal systems, and I agree it is crushing.
> Irrelevant and ultimately arbitrary distinction.
This is a good point. America and Africa are the same because they’re both on earth. Few people have the good sense to dilute a point to absolutely meaningless terms, all of that muckety-muck about “relevance” and “the topic at hand” distracts from the truly important work: handwaving in such a way to shut down discussion at light speed
Why do people take such low pay for making sandwiches? Genuine question, because doesn't that just lower wages for everyone and sorta peg the value of a sandwich maker to being $X/hr?
> Ultimately these discussions devolve to people just being bitter others have more than them.
No, just like complaining abou theft doesn't betray the secret wish to be the thief, but for there to be no theft. Same for wages not matching productivity, not even inflation, while inequality keeps rising. If you can't understand that, that says solely something about you.
This has been the HN playbook for a while now. In order to shut down a conversation, just accuse the other side of jealousy. Particularly before Musk fell out of the general graces of the user base, it was incredibly common to see comments like this in regard to any criticism.
Fits well into the category of "thought terminating cliche" [1]. Sadly I've noticed a steep increase in them being employed here and other similar sites lately, often with the intent of "winning" arguments.
> Is it bad for [...] people to have too much money or not?
Yes, by definition. The question is, how much is too much money? And in what context?
Put another way, in a given economy, how much do the wages between the top and bottom earners need to differ in order for there to be not only a perceived inequity, but a genuine ethical imbalance?
We are all on the same planet, but we are not all under the same jurisdiction. My vote matters for healthcare in the US, but bears no direct influence on the healthcare in countries in Africa. If I believe that healthcare CEOs don’t create as much value as they are paid, then I may gravitate towards a single payer system and vote for a candidate pushing for it.
This stats is relevant, if you vote based on data of how shared infrastructure is used.
Nonsensical argument. Equality isn't all or nothing it's better if we have less of it even if we don't have none of it. Furthermore people have obvious interests in decreasing inequality directly effecting them more than inequality between their home nation and another.
Rich people having almost all the money means in practice they have almost all the power and our society consistently acts in a fashion so as to serve the interests in virtually all matters right up until something is so important that it solely makes or breaks elections.
Billionaires don't just hoard all the toys they are outright poison for democracy.
If you aren't a temporarily embarrassed millionaire you are yourself benefiting from inequality and value your own interests over the rest of us.
It's ok if you think greed is good just admit it and don't pretend more ethical people are just jealous.
>Consider that Americans waste more energy and generate more greenhouse gasses that citizens in other, lower emitting countries
I have considered it, and it’s why I support ending all immigration (legal or otherwise), even enforcing reverse-migration if necessary.
Every person we bring here 10/20/30x’es their lifetime carbon output. Pro-immigration leftists are some of the biggest polluters on the planet for this reason.
I think this is inaccurate. Complaints about CEO wages are made from positions that perceive their pay has stagnated and is therefore not compensatory. The facts about wage growth bare this out to be true. When you have executives and C suites making money have over foot but you have no movement in common employee wages you will see comparisons being drawn. Those comparisons will then lead to derision.
I generally agree. A lot of contradictory statements and I would only add to that. I feel like people tend to pigeonhole each region in the US, the US itself, and indeed any other country into what “people act like”. There might be a common thread that is statistical but it’s not monolithic in any sense. Micro cultures exist and interplay with the macro culture especially in a networked world.
Well the article we're commenting on claims it's also an East vs West thing, and that Asians are "deeply in guess culture". Which, if you know Mainland China only a little you'll know isn't a thing, because in China it's not uncommon for people to make the most outrageous requests without breaking a sweat. Which in turn is seen as embarrassing or rude by some other Chinese. That may be much less common in Japan, where people are obsessed with etiquette. But then the author should say it's a part of Japanese culture, not Asian culture.
All this seems like good old stereotyping to me. It often comes down to the individual family or even the individual person. Maybe their social skills, maybe their level of selfishness. Maybe also how much they care about how they're seen by others vs how comfortable they are being themselves. A lot of factors can play into this.
Well in Romanian there's a saying: "Stupid's not the one who asks", implying that the gullible "guess" who gives into the shameless unreasonable request is the sucker. Implying that although "guess" culture is the expected civilized social norm, it's usually it's brazen antagonist that propels your interests forward.
Northern European countries are, I believe, generally considered low context countries. High context countries include Japan, India, several Middle Eastern countries, France etc
I didn’t watch the whole thing due to the audio, but what I have seen is this still not ultimately a new language? As someone else here stated, the compiler is determining if the code it sees is Circle or C++ so that means it’s handling them differently. Which means all the legacy cpp code would never touch this and people who already started cpp would need to maintain two separate flavors of the language. Maybe I am misunderstanding this project.
Don't see how that follows. Typescript treats code as either TS or JS depending on the file extension. But that doesn't mean nobody who has JavaScript code would switch to Typescript. The idea is, you migrate one file at a time. With Circle it's even more gradual, since you can migrate one file one feature at a time.
I think the idea is that you can migrate a translation unit at a time anda feature ata time while still being able to link your whole application. Not differently from the migration path between c++ revisions.
As someone with a lot of live audio background, I lament bad audio at conferences. I keep thinking that there is a product need there, but it feels too much like selling vitamins.
If the sale was legitimate sure. But there is a long, proven history of fraudulent sales and straight theft. In those (numerous) instances would it not behoove the recipient to return them?
There are some people here saying “the people who made them are dead”. Which I imagine is an argument for “nobody actually owns them”. Which is a myopic view. The cultural heritage of a region should be able to be enjoyed by the people of that region. Imagine if major artifacts of American, or British (or wherever you are from) history were lost to another far away land and you had no opportunity to marvel at them, how might you feel?
That said, there is something to the notion of borrowing and “tours” of artifacts, so people of the world can also enjoy them.
