HN user
And that history and that present reality means that many things are not just abstract propositions but are direct threats.
Historical context alone does not make a direct threat. A direct threat is a direct threat, and right now being accused of racism (no matter the truth of it) is far more scary than racism itself.
We're discussing the situation in present-day tech culture, mostly with regards to Silicon Valley and the Bay Area as compared to China.
You're leaving out the part where A whips up a real mob and lynches somebody.
Yeah because that hasn't happened, and if it did would be met with universal condemnation and be up against full weight of law enforcement and the legal system.
And what do you think has a stronger chilling effect: the possibility of being fired or the possibility of being murdered?
If the possibility of being fired for ideas is highly likely while the possibility of being murdered for ideas is essentially zero, then the possibility of being fired has a stronger chilling effect.
Well, is twitter actually the problem, though? Twitter's biases are a problem, but that's a separate issue. Twitter can't be expected to prevent all forms of propaganda from its users, and even if they could the problem is not just twitter specifically, it's all social media. While the parent made a pithy comment using Twitter as an example, in reality instigators rely on an array of platforms to spread the message and whip up the proverbial mob.
And more importantly, people with decision-making power have shown a remarkable tendency to submit to the will of these capricious and volatile online mobs.
You might agree, but you're both completely wrong. As James Damore proved, the exchange goes like this:
A: Statistically speaking, there are some genetic explanations for trends we see between men and women.
B: That is a sexist thing to say that women can't do tech, so you are harming women in tech. You need to be fired.
A: But... that's not what I said...
B: SO COURAGEOUS of the company to fire that employee for those bigoted ideas
C: Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?
D: Every time someone says something bigoted, they're like "muh free speech!" Stop saying bigoted things!
I keep hearing that from people saying things like...
Are you actually hearing that, or are you reading someone else's disingenuous over-simplified interpretation of what someone else said? Maybe just doing the incorrect reading yourself? Or are you reading an anonymous 4chan one-liner that could have been posted there by anyone for any reason?
What if the ideas are unethical?
Then explain why. If you can't explain why something is unethical without resorting to intimidation of the people expressing those ideas, then maybe they are more ethical and your concept of righteousness is flawed or missing something important.
That period did not last. Yes, if you try hard enough and look narrowly enough you can find exceptions to any of these rules, but it holds as a general guideline. If hyperinflation had continued indefinitely, it's probable some other commodity would have supplanted it as a de facto currency.
Missed it. In my mind I think I lumped it in with divisibility, which is related but not quite the same thing.
I predict the price will continue to rise on average for the next 1-5 years, although it might start slowing. At some point between 10 and 25 years, Bitcoin will experience a major crash. Whether it stabilizes into some sort of useful medium of exchange alongside competing cryptocurrencies is hard to predict. It might survive in a limited role or a limited market, the value of which is very hard to imagine at this point.
In 100 years I think bitcoin will be worthless.
Barter is, by definition, an exchange of goods without using money. In other words if you have to barter to get rid of it, it's not currency.
When it hits all of:
Acceptability
Durability
Divisibility
Stability
Portability
(Elasticity)
If it spoils or decays within your lifetime it's not a currency.
If it's not something you can divide in order to make payments of a more-or-less arbitrary amount, it's not a currency.
If you can't predict how much of the asset you will need to pay your bills next month, it's not a currency
If you can't bring it with you to the place where the exchange takes place, it's not a currency.
If you can't obtain capital investment in a currency because the currency itself is more valuable than anything you could produce, then it's not a (good long term) currency. This last one is in parens because it one only matters in a growing economy. A deflationary currency can still otherwise function as a viable medium of exchange, but eventually, lack of availability for new entrants will mean that entrepreneurs will begin looking to do business in alternate currencies.
It's still far too volatile to be a reasonable currency.
Sadly, in the real world most silicon for users will be busy rendering a cat trying to fit into a box and then falling over
Better than ideological proselytizing and political propaganda.
Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title?
He's talking about The Guardian and how he doesn't read it anymore. He didn't attribute the author specifically. It doesn't matter whether it was the original author or Guardian's editors guilty of publishing the offensive content.
I sometimes feel like there isn't much alternative to The Guardian
I stopped reading The Guardian years ago. A little part of me dies inside every time I see some piece of completely off-topic Guardian propaganda make the front page of Hacker News and nobody seems to care.
I doubt they're manipulating this sort of thing.
But, when you're engineering search results to manipulate public perception, you don't just obliterate all of the undesirable content with hamfisted obviousness. You just weight the content differently. Maybe you ensure that anyone already looking for that content can find it, but ensure that a more generic search is favorable. Maybe you just manipulate the heap to ensure the top result is the good one. Maybe you merely aim for a favorable ratio of desirable to undesirable content.
Consider: "best search engine"
The results are full of discussions about alternate search engines. Both duckduckgo and dogpile make the front page. Yet, the #1 result is an article about how Google is the most popular search engine: https://www.reliablesoft.net/top-10-search-engines-in-the-wo...
Is that true? Sure. Is the result manipulated? Probably not. But if I was google and I was going to manipulate a search result, that's exactly how I'd do it. I'd maintain the illusion of impartiality by presenting lots of alternatives, but I'd ensure the most prominent result was the one I wanted.
In any case: a quick search is insufficient to detect search bias and proves nothing.
The problem is that people at level 1 are currency for the people who disagree at level 5. High-level partisans on both sides rely on propaganda and rhetoric to sway the lowest common denominator for support. Most of those people are not making up their minds about what to believe based on the scientific validity of the evidence. They're simply going with their gut.
This is not the right way to look at the issue. If the low-level data itself can not be made any more convincing, the only real option is to ignore staunch deniers. The right way to look at this, given the way it has been politicized, is to look from the perspective of any proposed policy change. And then for each given change, be sure that the evidence and arguments are solid at all levels of the discussion. That is:
1. The observed climate data is valid and complete.
2. The predictive models are reliable and sufficiently comprehensive and objective.
3. Specific problems are clearly articulated.
4. Proposed policies will solve the clearly articulated problems.
5. The proposed solution is realistic to implement worldwide, wont' have any unexpected side-effects, and won't cause worse problems than the problems it's solving. Negative side-effects should be acknowledged and addressed as best as possible.
While I have seen arguments that at least touch on most of those points, it's very difficult to arrive at level 5 and not have ANY room for mistakes or legitimate differences of opinion and perspective. So while it's nice to bitch and moan about the wild conspiracy theorists challenging the facts established at the lowest level, the opposition is just as justified bitching and moaning about all the political actors who have already decided what solution they want, and are just doing whatever they can to make sure that solution becomes policy, no matter the consequences.
I don't mind die-hard liberals who are actually open-minded believers in individual rights and equality.
The whole white, het, cisgender stuff is coming from intersectional feminism, which is anything but a liberal philosophy.
fervently hoping that he won't be true to his campaign proposals.
Which ones?
The only serious one I oppose is aggressive rounding up of illegals. Others I oppose are relatively minor, compared to my opposition to the massively corrupt and sick Hillary Clinton
And each Trump supporter, no matter what their ideology is, believes that they are the special snowflake who knows what Trump really believes in his heart of hearts.
Well I think he is less likely to start a war with Russia. I base that on the evidence I have observed about the behaviors of each candidate.
The problem I have engaging with your argument is that I cannot crawl inside your head to discover what your perceptions of Donald Trump are, and those appear to be the only terms on which you're comfortable discussing Donald Trump.
Oh come now. The reason you shouldn't have to crawl inside his head is that you can engage in discussion to learn what he thinks.
If the issue is a dispute between what I believe Trump is saying and what you believe Trump is saying, we could have a discussion where we break it down and identify what parts we share and what parts we don't share, and why.
For example, we could start by agreeing that Trump is opposed to immigration. You could claim that this is racist. I would suspect this is a deeply held prejudice so I would just dispute it and move on. I would claim that "Building a Wall" is just a rhetorical device to focus people's attention on the more abstract and tedious problem of an insecure border. You could point out how Trump or his surrogates have used various examples of actual border walls in other parts of the world, which would lend credibility it being a real promise, not mere rhetoric. We'd both have learned something. And so on.
Alternately, you could just go opposite direction and just start throwing around vague, obsolete terms like Fascism and the discussion would go nowhere.
I always find it laughable (in a very sad way) when people support a political candidate based on the active belief that they won't actually do what they say.
I always find it laughable (in a very sad way) when people forget that solving the problems of tomorrow with the solutions of today usually doesn't work very well.
I am exhausted by all of the requests
Well get un-exhausted and stop pretending not to understand negotiation techniques (this community is primarily about start-ups, is it not?).
Trump is a negotiator. He has been a negotiator his whole life. An aggressive opening bid is openly part of his style.
Trump is also an entertainer, he knows how to push people's buttons and get people engaged using visual imagery and drama. He does this to combat the hostile and equally (usually more) dishonest mudslinging that all modern politicians engage in.
He also knows how to use his skill at PR as leverage. Someone negotiating with him knows that he can rally the public to push for, say, Term Limits or something. Or, if you're cooperative, maybe he'll use that same rhetorical entertainer skill to help you out. Have you noticed how often Trump, usually in a seeming offhand manner, praises the people and groups who do business with him?
It's really not that hard to understand. You should not be getting exhausted over this.
How about we just go back to people running for office actually saying what they intend to do, and voters taking them at face value?
This is due to the methods that modern politicians use to win votes. Their published platforms are always vague and lack REAL details. And even if and when they have real details, any thinking person knows that there are two huge problems to implementing any proposed change: (1) opposition from system (eg congress) (2) circumstances change and the policy no longer makes sense. So instead of going into all the details about how they're going to implement their free ice cream policy, they spend massive amounts of money on PR (friendly press hits, TV ads, attack ads) to influence voters using rhetoric and exposure.
Of course Clinton's campaign has been legendarily dishonest and unethical [1]. But they all do it to some extent.
You cite Obama's campaign? Other than healthcare, what do you actually remember about his platform? What I remember is a lot of vague rhetoric about "Hope and Change." He was heavily critical of Bush's wars, and yet Obama's foreign policy has been full of violence and war.
Which, by the way, is surprisingly close to how most politicians actually behave. George W. promised to cut taxes, and cut taxes.
GW Bush invaded Iraq. I don't remember that being on his platform, do you?
[1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive...
Like how Trump claimed he sexually assaulted women,
Except he didn't. This is a blatantly ignorant interpretation of the conversation that ignores the implied levity and non-seriousness of the exchange and the explicit claim that consent is granted.
You realize that a US President merely hinting that we won't defend our NATO allies is a direct path to World War III?
You realize that any attempt to implement Hillary's proposed no-fly zone in Syria would require the US to shoot down Russian aircraft? You realize that is an act of war?
We are way closer to World War III than you realize, and it's most definitely not Trump's rhetoric that has brought us here.
Enough of his supporters legitimately believe the election is rigged that we're looking at the delegitimization not only of our likely next president but the entire political system.
Hillary's team[1] is the one training protesters in methods of provocation and escalation to violence and then sending them to Trump rallies to cause chaos and anarchy. Hillary's team is the one celebrating that their covert operations succeeded in having a rally in Chicago shut down. Hillary's team is the one subverting democratic institutions and promoting escalations of violence and anarchy.
These shenanigans wouldn't even have been attempted if the Clinton Machine operatives thought that the press would cover the stories fairly and objectively. (Or, if they really buy into their own propaganda that bird-dogging provocation is somehow blameless, they would claim hostile press). Either way, it took an independent journalist (who is maligned and whose credibility is still attacked by corporate media) to expose the operation and offer the people the chance to really understand what happened in Chicago, San Jose, and elsewhere.
Without a functioning 4th estate, you cannot have real democracy.
[1] Yes, she had "plausible deniability" but that's irrelevant at this point. Whether Hillary is actually the calling shots makes very little difference. Her so-called "political machine" is all she has going for her.
Russia will reclaim the Baltic states
There is no point to wild speculation about Russia invading the Baltic states at some future date when the possibility of war with Russia exists RIGHT NOW over Syria and the allegations of cyberwarfare from Hillary Clinton and the current administration.
Trump's rhetoric is entirely focused on doing what's best for the American People, without regard to idealistic, imperialistic, abstract Neocon ideology of expanding US hegemony and influence.
Response to Sam Altman's post:
A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy. He has no real plan to restore economic growth.
The truth is that no one knows for sure what will be best for the American economy for the next four years. There are too many variables and too much unpredictability to know for certain what a Trump president would look like.
His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer.
This is a fallacy. The country is already divided over immigration, and has been for a long time. The prevalence of this kind of fallacious rhetoric from elites like Sam Altman is precisely why the nationalist faction chose Trump to lead them. In order to counter this kind of deceptive propaganda, they needed someone willing to use equally powerful rhetoric in their favor.
Also, the claim that his policies are racist is simply not true. They are not racist.
But the man himself is even more dangerous than his policies. He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage.
Sam cites no evidence and makes no argument to back up these exceptional claims. I have been watching Trump for an entire year, and I have not observed any erratic or "abusive" behavior. At least, nothing exceptional that wasn't already directed at him. Sure, he savaged his GOP rivals with name-calling and theatrics. But they had already called him a clown, a sideshow, a circus. So it's OK to call Trump names but not OK to for him to respond in kind?
Trump supporters see this hypocrisy and understand that Trump is doing what he needs to do to win the election.
He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants, and I believe this reason alone more than disqualifies him to be president. My godson’s father, who is Mexican by birth and fears being deported or worse, is who convinced me to spend a significant amount of time working on this election at the beginning of this year, when Trump still seemed like an unlikely possibility.
More blatantly fallacious reasoning. Because a Mexican national fears deportation (why?), suddenly Trump is a threat to all women minorities and immigrants?
Ridiculous fallacy. This is why Trump must use the rhetoric he does, because his opponents are so full of shit that they don't even realize it.
Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president.
I'll grant that Trump shows little explicit respect for the Constitution. But Hillary doesn't either. No one's respecting the constitution because no one (Sam Altman) has been demanding it. There's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees immigration to anyone who wants it, which so far is the only issue he has identified that has not been a grossly biased representation.
Speaking of which, "human decency." Again, another extreme claim with absolutely NO argument or evidence to back it up. Altman boldy claims that Trump shows little respect for human decency, and yet anyone who has actually watched Trump interact with his supporters all year long shows that he is overflwing with of decency. People love him, he makes them feel good just to be around him. Here Altman is appealing to popular prejudice about Trump, which has been reinforced repeatedly by others like him in his echo chamber.
It's one thing to not waste time justifying claims for which the evidence is abundant and easily found. But there's no such evidence for these claims. There's a lot of other people saying similarly bad things that also have no evidence. So there's a clear reason why this perception exists. But I see no real argument.
As for fearing for national security? Again just another emotional appeal with no justification. What about Hillary actively antagonizing Russia? Speaking recklessly of no-fly zones over Syria, which our own Generals claim would mean going to war with Russia. This fear just seems ignorant.
Though I don’t ascribe all positions of a politician to his or her supporters, I do not understand how one continues to support someone who brags about sexual assault, calls for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US, or any number or other disqualifying statements. I will continue to try to change both of their minds.
First thing: if Sam Altman wants to understand, then he needs to learn how to listen. Trump never bragged about sexual assault, and to claim he did is a lie. Everyone repeating this is also lying. If you actually want to understand, the first thing you need to do is admit your interpretation of this is wrong. If you can't do that, you'll never make any progress towards understanding.
As for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the US? Immigration is not a right. There's no amendment that says anyone anywhere has the right to come to this country. We have the right (and some would say duty) to restrict entry to anyone for any reason. The fact is that Muslims tend to hold very different values than Americans (Sam Altman might want to ask what Peter thinks about Muslim's beliefs on homosexuality), and there there are Muslim organizations who have made an explicit goal of destroying Western European civilization through a combination of settlement, violence, and propaganda. You can't say that about any other major religion in the world.
And so of all the "basket of deplorables", that is the one I will admit to. I am not racist, at least, no more than anyone can be in the US given the amount of race-baiting done by corporate media. I am not sexist. I'm not homophobic or anti-semitic.
But I am an Islamaphobe. Islam scares me. The religion itself scares me as does the activities of its leaders-- the so-called moderates as well as the extremists. It scares me more than any other major religion in the world. No other religion of significant size has the same combination of intolerance, subversiveness, violence, conquest, and hostility to those outside the faith. I look at the character of Islamic civilization, and I know without a doubt that I do would not want to live under those values. While I totally understand that it's possible to interpret the Quran and Hadith in less violent and aggressive ways, and that most Muslims are just ordinary people who want to live happy and healthy lives, that's not the trend in the world today. There's not a single Islamic country that I would want to live in.
You won't see me harassing anyone or trying to deny American Muslims their 1st amendment rights. It's not hatred I feel. I'll never condone "hate speech" or "hate crimes." I do not fear ordinary Muslims, individually. I am not even opposed to having a solid and stable minority of American Muslims in perpetuity. But I most emphatically do not think we should be inviting substantial numbers of them into the country. We are not prepared to assimilate them and once there are sufficient numbers of them in the country they will start agitating to impose their political will on everyone else, which is likely to include political violence.
You don't need a generation to study basic income.
Yes, you do. BI will change mating patterns and child-rearing patterns and the consequences of those changes will not show up for a generation or two.
Well, it's "not the normal scientific method." Although it's arguably a part of it. My objection may have been a bit strenuous, as the key word here is "pilot study." This is a pre-study study. Their only "hypothesis" here is "is a basic income experiment with real people even at all feasible"
They don't yet have a real hypothesis about basic income, at least not that they have presented. The questions here (https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income) are rhetorical and vague, which make for very bad hypotheses.
Personally I do not believe this study, as I see it described now, will yield any useful scientific knowledge. The results, if they seem favorable, will be used to influence public policy without regard to actual scientific merit and society will be subjected to the real experiment.
I would be much less concerned if I saw someone with a rigorous background in mathematics and economics developing an actual predictive model that could be falsified with specific tests. When the inputs are vague ("people") and the conclusions are subjective ("are people happy?") it is not scientific method.
It seems to me that a limited, 5-year Basic Income experiment is fundamentally flawed and will, at best, fail to predict anything important about what system-wide BI would have on society and at worst will be disastrously misleading and have an incredibly adverse effect on public policy.
What I'm reading scares me.
Oakland is a city of great social and economic diversity, and it has both concentrated wealth and considerable inequality. We think these traits make it a very good place to explore how basic income could work for our pilot.
To me this screams complete lack of any meaningful experimental controls.
If the pilot goes well, we plan to follow up with the main study. If the pilot doesn’t go well, we’ll consider different approaches.
What does this mean? If the pilot gives you the results you want? What kind of science is this?