zusammen

“Indirect costs” were accepted on the theory that this would be used to create job security for professors who did useful work but were not able to secure direct funding.

Spoiler alert: That job security doesn’t exist anymore. A professor who isn’t winning grants, even if tenured, is functionally dead. Research doesn’t matter except as PR and teaching definitely doesn’t matter; the ability to raise grants is the singular determinant of an academic’s career.

Consequently, most academics despise university overhead because it reduces the number of grants to go around and they get nothing for it.

That does not, of course, mean they support Trump or Musk. Most do not.

To be truthful, though, that’s only like 0.01 percent of the “academia was stolen from us and being a professor (if you ever get there at all) is worse” problem.

Absolutely everything is tracked as a work item with estimates. Anything you think should be done needs to be justified and tracked the same way.

My grandpa once said something that seemed ridiculous but makes a lot of sense: that every workplace should have a “heavy” who steals a new worker’s lunch on the first day, just to see if he asserts himself. Why? Not to haze or bully but to filter out the non-fighters so that when management wants to impose quotas or tracking, they remember that they’d be enforcing this on a whole team of fighters… and suddenly they realize that squeezing the workers isn’t worth it.

The reason 1950s workplaces were more humane is that any boss who tried to impose this shit on workers would have first been laughed at, and then if he tried to actually enforce it by firing people, it would’ve been a 6:00 in the parking lot kinda thing.

I was in San Francisco that week. Ecological issues aside, it was the last time San Francisco felt different in a good way rather than a bad one. The “negative energy” is now too much for me and, when I travel to the Bay Area, I pretty much just stay on-track. I wonder if people who lived in San Francisco from 1965-2005 expected it to last forever.

There’s a built-in design paradox. How does a judge assess an expert in a field where he is not one? There’s probably some improvement that comes from experience but it’s not perfect.

You conveniently left out the job for life part which is a huge part of why most professors want a TT job.

Also, age makes you better at doing jobs but worse at getting them. You do not want to be on the open labor market after 50, especially if you’re specialized and probably (possibly undiagnosed) neurodivergent.

Generally, no. There’s a risk of unfair competition for work (they can delegate the stuff they don’t want because they have political power) and their code often becomes “untouchable” because few will call it out if the code is bad.

A hobby project to keep current isn’t a bad idea, though.

I’m an aging (60s) academic and I’ve found that the old assumption of our world offering a “life of ideas” that any talented person would want is no longer true. If you’re coming in now or came in in the past 30 years, it’s liters just a job. Not necessarily a bad job, but certainly not a calling.

The tenure system is necessary for it to function, because wages are so low relative to skill level and the job market is so unreliable, but it also makes things worse because the old hands mostly don’t fight evil changes (and there have been tons of evil changes recently) of only the young will be affected.

Of course, the current state of the US government and the rising anti intellectualism don’t help.

People who have children to fill a “void” end up disappointed. They grow up, they move away, they either resent how little they had or how much they had given to them and what it has done or not done for their fledging careers.

I have three. No regrets, but I didn’t do it to give my life meaning. They are their own people and I am responsible for giving my life meaning, no one else.

At some point, you are back with yourself and own thoughts. This is neither good nor bad. It simply is.

This is deeply interesting to me. For one thing, I’m in my sixties and I definitely feel like I’m the same person I was, fundamentally, as in my 20s. The world has changed and my body has changed and I make fewer mistakes but I never woke up and realized, “I’m an old man.” I know I am one, but I feel just fine. If anything, on balance I like being old. The fact that people slightly underestimate me now sets up a lot of good jokes.

Unrelatedly, I just finished reading the semipublished novel of a member of our community, who I believe is in his late 40s and who could probably never get through today’s traditional publishing because he is clearly autistic. I had low expectations, but it’s shockingly good. As in, if it had the right people behind it, it would easily be one of the top books in a given year. And I think the books written by people of his age are slightly different from those written at mine, and of course both perspectives are radically different from a Gen Z 20-year-old’s.

When you read young novelists, you get the first draft of a new generation’s perspective. I barely understand Millennials and Gen Z is still opaque to me because so few authors of real talent have bubbled up. They exist for sure, but nepo kids get exposure first so I have really hard to find the good ones.

As they age, writers get better at writing. But writing is not the sole determinant of good fiction and it is even less correlated to relevance. Old writers tend to produce books that are technically fantastic and that critics and career writers recognize as superlative in craft, and often quite creative contrary to stereotype because these people don’t stop learning, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be relevant to any current conversation. Young authors tend to produce work that is more jagged and less technically accomplished, but extremely relevant to the time. Ellis is a prime example: he wrote the quintessential novel of the Reagan Era—it’s shocking and disgusting and not brilliantly written, but well-written enough.

That said, “bad sentences” are one of those issues that writers agonize about but the fact is that editors will catch them if they’re truly awful. It also doesn’t have much to do with age, because old writers who understand grammar extremely well also make mistakes, which 95 percent of the time are typos. Either they are removed by the proofreader or they become part of the history.

Family members of mine at the VP/EVP level in “enterprise” type companies regularly work 12+ hours on weekdays and ~8 per day on weekends.

At that level, they’re in the club and guaranteed to advance as long as they don’t make enemies and get kicked out of the club (which is rare, but happens, and usually means they spend a year or so finding another club.) So while some of them do work long hours, they don’t have to. They’ve already been judged to be in the in-crowd and could work 10 hours per week from wherever they want, and they’d still make every promotion.

So why do they work so much, and why do they go to the office? Because most of those guys (a) mutually dislike their families, (b) have psychological disorders, and (c) have office affairs. To psychopaths, 70 hours per week sunk into high-stakes office politics is fun.

You’re probably right. The historical norm is that there are owners and there are workers. We seem to be regressing to that.

The difference is that medieval peasants knew their manorial lords had bigger houses and ate more meat, but the visible local differences were small and religion could operate (for worse or better) as a stabilizing force. People tolerated a caste system because they were information poor.

There’s no reason today, though, for people to put up with the kind of inequality that is not only extreme and senseless but constantly being shoved in their faces via social media. The only way the rich stay out of the guillotines is by creating new, weird cultural spectacles like litter boxes in schools (not even a real thing) for “furry kids.”

This is the sad reality of oligarchy. Red/blue culture wars appeal to some people because they would prefer an authoritarianism that at least pretends to have their back 50 percent of the time over rich people (their employers) who have their back 0 percent of the time.

No one wants (and I don’t think anyone should want) bipartisanship, not really. Bipartisanship means the rich get everything they want—efficiently. It means the meetings of the club we aren’t in happen on time and no one ends up with a black eye. That’s also an unacceptable outcome. Of course, it can be argued that the outcome we are getting is basically the same thing, but with cheap depressing entertainment and widespread governmental dysfunction.

Of course, anyone who thinks voting for any of these right-wing figures will end oligarchy is delusional. Their charisma comes from the fact that, because they hate basically everyone, they also incidentally hate many of the other oligarchs. But nothing good happens when people vote for hate, and none of these pricks will ever end oligarchy since they are all part of it. The Nazis truly did present themselves as somewhat socialist (it was in the name) in the early 1920s to gain their first followers, but as soon as they were in power, they realized they had more to gain by siding with the industrialists and against labor, which is of course what they did.

I often see in HN comments about how trading and Wall St in general is evil

Trading is one of the least evil things that goes on on Wall Street. Starting wars for profit (e.g., Blackwater) and buying additional houses as investments (as private equity firms do) and making massive job cuts while posting record profits, are all evil. I loathe capitalism but I agree that quants and traders are some of the least compromised people, whereas “change the world” techies and now techzis are the worst. Traders are, as you said, honest about their motivations.

Ultimately there is no ethical production or consumption in a system as rotten as ours, and everyone has to make a choice. Graveyards are full of moral people, and country clubs are full of humanity’s absolute worst. And if one has children, the argument can be made that failing to provide for them is ethically worse than taking a job within capitalism so long as one isn’t directly harming anyone.

The irony is that AI, as a replacement for an even average programmer, doesn’t work. You can use it helpfully if you are already a programmer, but if you’re not, you won’t know when it’s generating insecure or even non-working code.

And yet it’s causing massive disruption. The bosses have such a hardon for layoffs that they’re doing this on the slim chance that it might work for them. Having to hire programmers back in a panic is, as they see it, future someone else’s problem.

Money doesn’t buy happiness but most people are subjected to artificial misery by this society and money does make that go away… at least, a fair share of it, probably 80 percent.

That said, a lot of people who get rich, because status is their real motivation, are shocked by how horrible society still is. At first they get hooked on the drug of high social status, but then they learn to see through the flattery and realize that nothing has truly changed, and they’re just as miserable as before. It tends to take about two years, in my observation, for the “new life energy” to wear off. Money teaches you that there isn’t some “better” society to aspire to. The people “up there” aren’t the supervillains Redditers imagine billionaires to be, but they’re not better either.

My daughter is autistic and when she started to learn how to read social cues she realized that her so-called friends didn’t actually like her, which I suspected myself but never had the chutzpah to say, and it made her angry. Getting rich has a similar “learn what people are really about” curse.

I don't think you have to have Fuck You Money to get to this point. Most people eventually become disillusioned with work enough that they reevaluate what matters to them. Getting a very profitable exit is just one way to trigger that experience.

I’ve seen a lot of people have random outlier success they didn’t earn and it seems to have the same effect as what most people get out of their careers: crushing failure they didn’t earn. By 50 or so, everyone figures out:

* it was almost all random. * the things that seemed so important were not. * working for money is a waste of time for almost everyone. * you can count your real friends on two hands, whether you’re broke or a billionaire.

It’s surprising how the paths converge. There are differences, and the rich version of alienation is better than the poor one, but the mindset this society leaves people with is remarkably stable. No one feels like they won, which is why Musk and Trump are so full of rage at everyone. Either the gods shut you out or you are forced to find out that the gods never existed.

I’m 65 and I have tenure. If I didn’t, I would leave the country. If I couldn’t, I don’t know what I would do. You do not want to be on the open market in the 2020s, that’s for sure.

it is nearly impossible for people with CS degrees (especially white males) to get an interview let alone a job.

My friend, if you think it’s bad for white men, just wait till you hear what it’s like for black women. 2+ year job searches, for black tech workers, were the norm even in the pre-COVID economy.

It’s terrible for everyone who isn’t in a position to take advantage of geographic arbitrage. And even that, for a worker, is unstable… look at how fast the bastards RTO’d people as soon as their real estate holdings took a hit.

This is how the startup life is sold to youngsters—million-dollar conversations just happen—and it’s amusing to see the myth is still alive.

I got a blindsight vibe when interacting with early ChatGPT through rot13 but I can’t be sure if it was real uncanny valley (pseudo) consciousness or me anthropomorphizing. Probably the latter. It really shows how much work was put into making LLMs not scare people.

[flagged]

The cultural left is becoming increasingly like the right in some ways and I’m not sure how I feel. On one hand, this might be helpful because the imbalance between a restrained left and an obnoxious right has been pushing the Overton Window in conservatives’ favor for decades and I’d be happy to see that stop. On the other hand, it upsets me to see other leftists be misinformed. Low T is a real health problem for a lot of men—-this isn’t manosphere bullshit.

I stopped calling myself a liberal in the 90s because I went to Europe for business a lot and liberal, funny enough, means conservative over there. I never really felt progressive fit—-too moderate, because it assumes all you have to do is sustain progress, but that speed isn’t crucial. And I am still on the far left but I feel less at home on the left since the shamefully misinformed reactions to the Simchat Torah massacre. I don’t support Israel’s far right government, but most of the people murdered didn’t either, and watching high school kids in Palo Alto chant a literal genocidal slogan was a wake-up call.

The secret hero of that time was the US government. I’m not talking about the MIC, which is still quite robust and more bad than good. I am speaking more broadly. If you had a practical PhD and were willing to show up at a place at 9:00, you could get a solid upper middle class job with the Feds where you couldn’t get fired unless you broke the law.

The government also has always kept academia afloat. It is a privilege afforded to professors to believe they do not work for the state, but they do.

Great government and academic jobs forced companies to create these labs where it was better to hire great people and “lose” some hours to them doing whatever they want (which was still often profitable enough) than have zero great people. Can you imagine Claude Shannon putting up with the stuff software engineers deal with today?

The other main change is that how to run big companies has been figured out well enough that “zero great people” is no longer a real survival issue for companies. In the 1970s you needed a research level of talent but most companies today don’t.

Thank you. One of the things I would really like to get to the bottom of is the question of why he could not accept the 6-month plea deal. Was it because he feared incarceration, or did his managers and investors do an inadequate job of reassuring him that his career would be protected in spite of the felony? If the latter, this community has a right to know.

No. I do plenty of my own, but he was connected to this community so I will get a better sense of what is trustworthy and what is relevant here.

My kids convinced me to try out a couple of those old final fantasy games from the 90s. As someone who studied Kabbalah I was intrigued by the fact that they named a character Sephiroth, although the character really had nothing to do with the name or concept. Anyway, I was already old so I didn’t have the same emotional connection (except when that girl was killed) because neither the writing nor the realism was at a level I hadn’t seen before. It definitely would have hit me hard at 13, though. Really hard.

Video games seem to be aiming to inspire strong emotion through realism, not writing. I won’t say the quality of the writing doesn’t matter but it’s not what makes a great game. Final fantasy games have really hackneyed plots and writing but do the game part extremely well. And video games are the best way to make a story accessible to a large number of people. I don’t think the written word puts a story into the center of a culture anymore.

The voice acting probably adds realism and accessibility but I agree that it also takes something away, just as no video game can do, intellectually and emotionally, what the written word can do. The fact that mere text had such an effect is part of the artifact. Sadly, I don’t how you tell teenagers, if you’re teaching language and literature, that people had the same strong emotional reactions to these texts we assign, that they have to video games.

Oddly enough I’m reading a fantasy novel right now by someone who used to be part of this community. It’s far better than I expected it to be, and it’s causing me to rethink a number of recent events I thought I understood.

The point these focus-deprived children could accurately make is that our adult world is also about reward hacking and bullshit metrics. I’m old but I will tell you that everything I dislike that I see in the young is society’s fault. We did a truly terrible job of giving them a world in which to become better, rather than worse, people.

In 1400, actually reading books deeply was for autistic weirdos who were usually sent to monasteries. In 1950, you could actually mention reading literary fiction on a job interview and it would help, rather than hurt, you. In 2024, actually reading books deeply is for autistic weirdos again and “well-adjusted” people realize that their ability to afford food and housing relies on the use of information to form a collage beneficial to one’s personal image—not deep understanding of high-quality information, and certainly not the high-risk generation of anything new.

Secret money is hard at a certain scale. Money is property rights and people have to believe your rights exist for them to actually exist. Elon Musk is not physically strong but simply the beneficiary of forces that have convinced the world’s mindless executors of one arbitrary thing in his favor, but could have just as easily convinced them of any arbitrary thing out of his favor.

It’s better to have $5 million than to be broke. That absolutely true. But there is a level of wealth and position where you absolutely must participate in the most evil parts of society to stay where you are. The level of money that you can quietly have is not one that rich people are impressed by. There is a higher level, which you cannot have without the support of society, and the support of society is something you do not get unless you are actively participating in terrible things, either as a willful actor or, more likely in this case, a patsy who usually has no idea what’s going on.

I do wish this article had been more concrete about what those terrible things were, though. And I have no sense of where the man was truly a criminal or just way out of his depth. When people in the arts and sciences get caught up in these things, it tends to be the latter.

I hated that voice. At first, I told myself it wasn’t right to hate someone’s voice so much because I assumed it had been something she couldn’t control, and in fact it made her slightly more impressive to me that she had gotten anywhere with such an uncharismatic voice. Then I found out that, no, she made it up. All fake.

I have a cousin with two special needs children. When I was first told that people in Silicon Valley fake neurological disabilities for clout, I didn’t believe it. I’ve worked in finance in the 1980s and ‘90s and I’ve seen some low behavior, but the fake speech issues of Holmes and the fake autism of Bankman-Fried are the sorts of things that even investment bankers would call unethical.

I was a standup comedian in the 1980s and was occasionally asked why “my people” were so funny, and it’s odd because there are a lot of things that are funny about us, but not the real answer to this one. We had to be, for thousands of years, or we died. If we had humorless dumb ones (and we do, but not as many, again, because of what happened to them, as well as quite a number of our best) they didn’t do as well.

I was also a clinical psychologist for a few years, and could say more on this, but some other time.

Jewish humor, gay humor, autistic humor… they’re all more similar than they are different. You learn, from atypical experience, to see everything one degree off and you have a story that people will listen to and eventually they might even like you. You see things three degrees off and you shut up so no one else knows. You get six degrees off and even you don’t know, but everyone else does.