Why am I not surprised that hn supports a forum for low level spooks to gossip about "cringe" people and harass them to the point of suicide?

Meanwhile, no one will ever see this comment because I'm shadowbanned.

> I'm shadowbanned.

You sure?

And also because he's explicitly made similar statements about non-executive staff, including purely hypothetical staff, e.g. the staff at twitter.

That's neat how different people see things from different perspectives because that statement is meaningless sophistry in my world.

It's built on a bunch of education and theory that's not at all covered in the article. The man is sufficiently credentialed to suggest that this is at least a well considered position of his based on his experiences as an economist and finance minister.

> He was fired [...]

He resigned and for good reason and he proved to be correct in all his assessments. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, at least get your facts straight.

Not that I'm a fan of him, but that's the least generous interpretation of the negotiations for the crisis in Greece.

Reputation is a short cut. And it's super common in every human discussion. Whether it is the HN heroes of pg and Musk, or this guy, we can look at someone's reputation and get a sense for their abilities.

Also, credentialed doesn't just mean academic credentials.

Any statistical taxonomist worth his salt knows that the number is much closer to 8,700.

It's dominated by mainstream, intelligentsia-approved narratives.

It has homogenized a bit, but perhaps this is why more contrary opinions need to speak up. I find myself often reading an interesting exchange that ends in a squinty grey section of text, and I sit there for a moment, frustrated, and trying to figure out what the dissenters downvoting see that I don't. Perhaps more well-reasoned rebuttals would be what HN needs to bring some of the old flavor back.

Before you ignore me and pass on, I've been active here for enough years to remember when you could discuss just about anything and people almost gravitated to a contrarian opinion to figure out how someone could get such a different view. People now seem too quick to downvote with no comment, which in my opinion is a loss for anybody following up after that who is missing that context.

It is the conversational equivalent of the person who makes a forum question about an obscure bug that goes on for about 30 replies or so, and then at the end its just the intrepid OP showing up to say "thanks guys its fixed" and nobody has a clue what got fixed or how. To me, this is the laziest form of discourse, and I think it is worsened by people being too comfy in their peer groups and despite advocating for diversity, not valuing diversity of concepts and viewpoints.

Yeah well so is the economy.

Nah, the AI ones are better, but look at the variety in the human designs, how the components are direct in their abstraction instead of, well a blob where none of it has real meaning.

This is the most vapid and content-free article I have ever seen from the nyt. Some guy basically got to publish his intra-company propaganda in exchange for saying vaccines are good.

I don't disagree with you. Still interesting to keep a finger on the zeitgeist.