thetrumanshow

> Write a talk nobody else could do; tell a story nobody else can tell. Figure out what your audience is going to learn, and why you’re the best person to teach them that.

That's an extremely high bar, no?

Why the downvotes for this guy? The article makes the specific claim that the flu death numbers are allowed to be inflated through lax CDC reporting rules so that people are encouraged to get vaccinated and practice good hygiene.

Shouldn't that make us skeptical?

That information may be sensitive. The F-15 platform is still under active development, and even if it wasn't those details might be too much to ask.

Probably so, but when someone steps in the direction you want them to go, its not effective to whack them for it. If you want them to continue down your path you say "Well done! But, can you take just one more small step?"

The hope is that these steps accumulate into something meaningful. A virtuous upward spiral.

> And it’s hard to read Republican’s sudden enthusiasm for tree planting as anything other than a cynical effort to dampen growing calls for the sorts of regulations and taxes required to bring about those changes.

Rather than going scorched earth on common-ground, why not see it as a stepping-stone, an opportunity to draw the other side toward your way of seeing things... and maybe even suggest more small, achievable steps for the other side to move in your direction rather than pulling out a cudgel?

I would suspect its true that most successful startup founders fall into the 80+ hour bucket, but I only have a handful of personal anecdata to support this (and for technical founders in the early days probably only 1/4 of that would be considered work, the rest being just an intense form of play!).

Re: Thiel, wasn't the point of that power law section meant to say that each founder should focus on what gives them leverage? I don't recall correctly.

"The Search" is the discovery of those things outside of your normal circles of concern, which makes it doubly-difficult to find _on purpose_. Felix Dennis describes the process more akin to an aware predator waiting for something to enter its kill-zone.

A few thoughts to add to the discussion, loosely related:

1) If I know exactly where to spend my time for the best rate of return, its likely that I'll have to spend relatively few hours achieving success.

2) For most people, the success they can achieve through just having a plain old job can be had for a mere 40 hours. Anything they want above what 40 hours can grant them should probably be done elsewhere (second job, side-hustle, etc) since the ROI will be very low for spending those additional hours at work.

3) The 80 hour week lifestyle is probably necessary for people who are still frantically doing what Felix Dennis calls "The Search", trying to build a company without the foggiest notion what people want.

> I guess this is what it feels like to be a young-earth creationist: I simply cannot wrap my head around...

You think you're picking on an easy target there, but if you talked to some, you might actually find a few that will talk about young-earth creationism in the context of something interesting like Einsteins theories of gravitational time dilation. Had an engineering professor like this.

Call it cognitive dissonance or not, but it seems pretty normal to be able to hold two concepts in one's head, even ones that seem to conflict... with the hopes of one day reconciling them.

Also, does it suggest that the most engaged HN readers (who come early to topic discussions) have a starkly different opinion to late comers?

This is pretty much every company. If everyone starts performing at the next level, you can't promote everyone, right? And plenty of things can squish your chances at promotion, like being somewhat unlikable in your group.

I think a better bet for spending your extra energy is often a side-hustle, like contracting.

4% sounds optimistic, but its good to have a canvas to paint on.

Potential bad effects from the top of my noggin:

* You've compressed the compounding growth in prices (inflation) by two years in one stroke.

* You've instantly decreased the buying power of a lot of people; worst affected are those not affected by the bump (recipients of disability, recipients of social security)

* Fun addenda: You've set the precedent for a 100% bump from the current federal rate, and its more likely to happen again, once more compressing the inflation timeline and further pressuring people that don't work a waged job.

Oh, and the reason putting pressure on inflation like this is bad is that it discourages investment, which leads to weakened economies.

Sure, the saying has broad appeal because the tautology of it is interesting. The actual debate, however, centers on whether laying down your weapons makes you vulnerable to those that hold onto theirs.. and that was the lens I was looking through.

Ok, I believe we are in the middle of arguing OP's point about how the pro-gun people are wrong when using the argument "only the criminals will own them", and how the pro-encryption people are right when using the same argument about encryption.

And, I think what you're adding here is that I've got an error in my statement that both parties will happily build their own firearms/encryption because the physical gun is harder to distribute than a copy of software.

And I agree in principle with this, until I realize that broad distribution of an encryption mechanism is exactly what a bad-acting government would want... crack once and everyone is compromised.

So, no, I think I would argue that its easier to distribute weapons than good, bespoke encryption.

And further, I would argue that if it is true for encryption, it is also true for firearms... that if they are outlawed, the power shifts to criminals as they will still use them.

This argument has merit, but if we DID amend out #2 and make guns illegal, over time firearm proliferation would decrease.

Hmm, then wouldn't some people just make their own firearms, just as you are describing with encryption, right?

There's probably a wee bit of presumption in connecting the dots like this, but its an interesting set of dots to consider, and I wouldn't mind any supporting links you have on this, opinion pieces or otherwise.

Maybe, but allowing them to enshrine this in policy without challenge is a mistake.

Whoa. Please consider sharing your playlist via Spotify!

> He proposes a program of “heartland visas,” in which skilled immigrants could obtain work visas to the United States on the condition they live in one of the counties facing demographic decline — with troubled counties themselves deciding whether to participate.

So, we're suggesting "encouraging" immigrants out of the cities, because why...they're putting pressure on housing? They're already self-selecting a small-town life in plenty of places. Our local population, small town Kansas, is already 10-15% hard-working Honduran immigrants of questionable immigration standing. This is a truism across the state.

Seeking precise rules for something is, in spirit, the exact opposite of what a logical fallacy is.

Correct: I do understand that the definition of violence has been expanded in some areas of public discourse, but it wasn't my point.

My point was to find out where the poster believed to be the new demarcation line for physical violence that is acceptable (in parenting). I intended to suggest that leading by the arm might be considered violence by some, perhaps including myself.

You can't escape this context, sure. But I was hoping for expansion on the idea where the poster stated "They should be investigated if their parenting is so poor that they resort to physical violence against the child." ... to which my reply is to ask what the limits are.

I can certainly imagine scenarios where leading by the arm would be considered violence, as it can cause pain and has the potential to injure.

If you lead a child by the arm against their will, is this tantamount to physical violence or no?

If we're busy redefining what is the acceptable behavior in parenting, we better discuss this all the way to the limits.

Whatever fake internet points you are being awarded for this comment, its not nearly enough. :)

I'm just an outsider, but I was lured to HN and the idea of YC by the cult of personality around PG long ago (we even applied for the first batch).

PG seemed like someone who didn't have all the answers, but was on a journey to find them and he was happy to take you with him.

By contrast, my first take on Sam was that he came across as more matter-of-fact and confident which was a slight turnoff for me. But, I think he was a fine choice to take the helm.

I do miss the cult-of-personality days :).

I found it well-written and interesting, but then again I tend to like the human-interest side of tech rather than reading up on the latest Kubernetes release.

And now you have to keep all of your lies straight.

It was Lenin, but the central thesis is not mistaken. The family was seen as a roadblock to the revolution since women, useful wards-of-the-state-to-be, were too busy caring for families to help the cause.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-rus...

https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.h... (Probably in the "What About the Men?" section)

Edit: since I was downvoted, and since the Lenin interview is gold, I'll mine some for you... hopefully with enough context:

"I ask you: Is now the time to amuse proletarian women with discussions on how one loves and is loved, how one marries and is married? Of course, in the past, present and future, and among different nations-what is proudly called historical materialism! Now all the thoughts of women comrades, of the women of the working people, must be directed towards the proletarian revolution."

Ah, that is an interesting idea, and worthy of more study.

I had always understood the Christian basis of friendship with the people of Israel was from Genesis 12:3, which suggests that those who "bless" the children of Abraham would be blessed.

This is an interesting and strange viewpoint I have never heard before. Might you elaborate?

The article never uses the standalone word "justice", and it is always preceded by "social". Therefore, your suggestion that the title is incorrect is spot on.