HN user
wait so why did you reply to my comment instead of just to the original comment? Is there something wrong with me addressing inaccuracies in the portrayal of Schiff's role, even if I don't address the aspects that interest you?
I don't see what it is in my comment that you disagree with.
I was only pointing out that Schiff funded the Bolsheviks because of his political views that were related to bring an American Jew. And there seems to be plenty of evidence in the Wikipedia article for that asking.
I never made the claim that Schiff was particularly important. Can you point to something specifically in my post that if incorrect?
That fact that you can't call it the Jewish lobby is exactly the squeamishness I'm referring to. The Jewish lobby are not at all shy about saying that they support Israel because they are Jewish. There are of course some Jews who claim to hold the opposite opinion because they are Jewish, but it is clear that the economic and political influence of Jewish Americans is overall pro-Israeli and pro-war, most recently advocating for a proxy war with Russia in Syria.
Also comparing three terms on google trends suggests the left haven't been nearly active enough in promoting either concept:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=Jewish%20lobby,milit...
Based on the wikipedia article it looks like Jacob Schiff funded the Russian Revolution because he was Jewish, and disliked the anti-Semitism of the Tzarist regime. As the article discusses, he funded the Japanese side in the Russo-Japanese war for the same reason.
Given this I don't think it makes sense to say that the Russian Revolution was funded by "Wall St." but rather that it was supported by a wealthy Jewish American who opposed the Tzarist regime.
The problem with the comparison is that the left also has blood on its hands. The self righteous zealotry of the progressive movement is as comparable to China's cultural revolution, as Trump's populist appeal to Whites is to fascism. That is, there are real parallels and real concerns on both sides. We can't just act like the only danger comes from the political right.
Here's a nice piece of fake news I saw circulating among my progressive friends on facebook: http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/controversial-cnn-chyron/
Both freshwater and saltwater would agree with the comment I replied to. freshwater and saltwater econ differ in their approach to macro models. Both sides broadly agree on general equilibrium theory as kind of first order approximation, and the post was a summary of general equilibrium theory.
Which side do you think would disagree or are you just trying to bluff me out with technical terms you don't fully understand?
As to funding, can you point to major sources of funding for academic econ research that would introduce bias?
It's hilarious that the one thing that is consistently down voted on hn is economic orthodoxy.
This is absolutely no different to the anti vaccination movement.
People are simply too lazy and arrogant to listen to what the economics profession has to say, and ignore that fact that the methods, organization and incentives of the economics profession are identical to the rest of academicia.
Isn't that exactly what the fake news sites works say?
This is an interesting question, but don't forget to also ask "how much would they make if they weren't working for Uber?"
Same goes for Walmart. If you've been to Walmart and Starbucks it's pretty clear that most Walmart workers would never be able to get a job at Starbucks.
You are interpreting "all lives matter" to mean this.
It could also mean that black people are not especially target by the police and that outrage at law enforcement is misplaced. For example we know that the rates of police violence against black people vs white people roughly mirrors arrest and conviction rates.
Now you might consider this incorrect, but I think it's a debate that has to be had in the open and not shut down by calling people racist.
Sure, I will give an example. Most people on the left believe that black Americans commit more crime per capita then whites, and that this is due to various sociostructural phenomena. However another common viewpoint is that the gap in conviction rates is actually due to a biased justice system and blacks do not actually commit more crime.
The latter view is rarely argued in academic circles so I've never seen it rigorously defended. But it is passed off as fact to the general public.
Now I am not able to correct this later group because if I do so, not only will they attack me as racist, but the former group will not defend me. In fact the former group will say "the only reason you would present this fact in isolation is because you want to imply black people are genetically inclined to crime". This would most likely result in disciplinary action in my workplace.
I think the left tends to deal in half truths or highly questionable interpretations of facts passed off as facts, while the right deals more in outright lies.
But the left has the ability to get you fired if you question their assertions too much. So their falsehoods are actually more effective
Yes there is. The actual tweet, verbatim was "will the 2nd amendment be as cool when i buy a gun and start shooting atrandom white people or no...[two eyes emoji]". Scroll down in the thread to see it.
This is exactly the kind of misinformation bubble that people are talking about. Kevin Allred is clearly misrepresenting his original tweet.
"othering" of nerds isn't restricted to liberals but it is especially hypocritical when they do it. Also liberals are predisposed to "other" nerds because they have chosen nerds to be the symbol of unaware privilege and crude libertarianism so in their thinking nerds deserve no sympathy.
A HUD would probably be almost as good as AR in terms of safety, just not nearly as cool.
What would be cool is using the windscreen for an AR display, with glasses for both head tracking and for stereoscopic display.
I guess it would be expensive, probably too expensive for Uber drivers. Maybe it could still be used in luxury vehicles while full autonomous operation is in the works.
After playing Holopoint for 30 minutes, I felt a sense of elation and heightened perception. I felt like I could type faster, and my reaction times were faster. It reminded me of Lawnmower Man.
I didn't get this effect with less intense games like Space Pirate Trainer.
If you want to make something cool, don’t give it to geeks first.
Does anyone else get really tired of stuff like this? Why is it that every possible difference is celebrated except within liberal circles, with the exception that nerds are considered objectively bad. In fact the article comes across as body shaming.
A voting system for websites based on "liquid democracy"[0], where a pagerank like algorithm is used to let a person assign votes to others. The catch is this system would deliver personalized scores so each person sees a personalized ranking based on the votes they cast rather than an average of everyone's votes.
The idea is that people get a "bubble" but that when people vote, hopefully they take into account both quality and how similar the post is to their own. So people get a better version of their own views, which hopefully also allows them to see similar but non-identical views.
You can see that sites like reddit which tend to have high quality posts, but many subreddis have very strong biases as well. Letting people live in their own bubble means that people can write the best quality posts they can without worrying if their bias matches the subreddit they are writing in.
If we keep the same caps and introduce a minimum wage for H-1B visas, this would be a strict improvement.
I don't know why this would even be controversial, it's basic economics. All developed countries prefer higher paid workers cause those workers pay more tax (and probably have bigger contributions to total surplus). Having a cap and letting it fill up randomly with lower income employees like those from contracting companies, instead of high income employees at big tech companies, is just leaving money on the table.
The problem is that liberals sneer at other people regardless of their actual qualifications or education. No on here has presented evidence that they are more educated or qualified than Trump, and yet they are taking it for granted that Trump's view is the view of the uneducated. That is the problem.
As to the wider point that more educated people are more liberal, there is plenty of evidence that liberal views are forced on people in the education system. That doesn't mean people are liberal because they are smart. If all universities were Christian, as they once were, that wouldn't prove that Christians were smarter.
And yet if the rule were "for every new javascript framework, 2 existing frameworks must be eliminated" HN would be cheering.
Ok I'm starting to see this. I guess a good example is how he acted towards Jeb especially in the primary debates. I still think that responding to Trump's verbal style with physical violence is wrong.
I meant "per capita". I'm wondering if you are really being fair in interpreting my comment the way you did. E.g. a progressive article uses the exact same language[0]:
It is also common to hear the supposedly neutral statement that “black people commit more crimes than white people.” This “fact” is used to justify a belief that black people have a natural criminal propensity, or that a “culture of violence” is to blame for problems faced by black people in America.
...even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers. But the fact that black people are incarcerated five times as frequently as white people does not mean black people commit five times as many crimes.
(incidentally this is exactly the kind if article that moderate liberals should be refuting, and in turn the article should acknowledge that moderate liberals also believe blacks really do commit more crime).
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-...
Everyone needs to break out of their own bubble to some extent, though other equally misinformed people may not be the best source.
My advice is to read the most informed, reasonable representatives of different viewpoints you can find, and then see why they disagree. Often people will play fast and loose with the facts in order to convince people they consider less educated, but when directing their words towards those they consider their peers, they will be more honest.
An example from the right is the many economists who should know better refuse to distance themselves from the idea of the "Laffer Curve", the idea that you can raise revenue by lowering taxes. Even though they know the Laffer Curve is bullshit, they don't want to refute it because it is a useful rhetorical tool.
An example from the left is that most moderate liberals agree that black Americans commit much more crime (EDIT: I meant "per capita", personally I think a reasonable reading of this comment as a whole would take that as implied) than white Americans. However, they don't want people to hear this fact except in the context where it's already agreed that the main cause for this is structural factors (i.e. a cycle of poverty, crime and lack of education). So in liberal circles this fact is "obvious" and "uninteresting" since the real question is how these structural factors operate. And yet at the same time, outside liberal circles this fact is considered "racist" and liberals do nothing to clarify that it is in fact true.
This site seems to be broken, I get matched but most messages don't post. In the meantime the best way to have a discussion with Trump supporters is not to vote them to negative infinity on HN :-)
"The social bullying coming from Clinton’s supporters guaranteed that lots of Trump supporters were in hiding. That created the potential for a surprise result, so long as the race was close."
This contradicts the "disgruntled blue collar white support base" narrative, and I'm interested in seeing evidence that figures out the difference. E.g. Did Hillary underperform in cities? Is there social pressure from progressives within the social circles of Trump voters? Did young college educated voters vote differently than expected?
See https://www.statista.com/chart/3848/the-us-murder-rate-compa...
The murder rate for whites in the US (i.e. the rate at which whites are murdered) is 2.5 per 100,000 much lower than the overall murder rate of 5.2 per 100,000. This is still higher than most of the West, e.g. 70% higher than Canada. But not the "extreme levels" you referred to earlier.
And you didn't mention guns before, I'm assuming you don't really only care about violence that comes out of the barrel of a gun, and you're just adding this now to avoid discussing the link between race and crime.
The payoffs to education are huge [0]. People need to be prepared for the new economy which requires college degrees and has fewer low-skill jobs.
The left laid the groundwork for Trump's victory (assuming Blue color Whites are really the cause, I think it's not the only factor myself) by promoting the idea that the new economy is unfair. Of course they mainly meant unfair to blacks and hispanics but whites got the message anyway.
If we want to help people thrive in capitalism, we need to avoid leftist narratives that are wrong, i.e. the narrative that education won't improve one's situation because capitalism always screws the little guy.
[0] http://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/20-facts-about-u...
"attractive for the combination of proximity, and cultural/linguistic similarities... There is something to be said for not having to deal with the ... insane levels of violence too."
If you just take the above elements of your reasoning, you've just described White flight.