Exactly, educated doesn’t mean schooled/credentialed. The word for this is “discrimination”— the more educated people we produce the less discriminating our institutions must be. If academia doesn’t discriminate the few from the many, it’s non-functional. Colleges are not to educate the public, they’re supposed to advance human knowledge. These are incongruent goals.

No they're not. They are related in theory if not in actual practice.

The Economist pretty clearly said elites equals educated. Maybe they misstate Turchin's position but it's understandable the parent responded to that.

-- And the whole "elite = educated" trope is a vicious rightwing canard that's gotten way too much play on this site, so clarification is useful.

I edited it 5 seconds after posting it. You posted 20 minutes after I posted it.

> I edited it 5 seconds after posting it.

And those edits don't propagate to pages that are already open.

> You posted 20 minutes after I posted it.

GP could easily have taken 20 minutes to read the article and comments before wading in. I know I've posted replies after leaving a tab open for hours before.

That is hardly OP's fault, since there is no way to be aware of others' HN reading behavior.

> That is hardly OP's fault, since there is no way to be aware of others' HN reading behavior.

I don't remember assigning fault.

“Weak sauce”?

> “Weak sauce”?

Whether that counts as assigning blame or not, I have not typed those words in the last decade or more.

I only just realized you aren't even the person who posted it.

Let's drop this thread, if he has a problem with me editing it, that's on him to say; I thought you were him considering how deep this got.

Here's the underlying: he responded late, it's his job to refresh, that's not etiquette, it's how the site functions.

Sure, but as a casual passer-by it seems like you're rationalizing the somewhat petulant comment from tpmx which did include those words: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27755083

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

You could have said that to the person complaining about 'weak sauce' in the first place. Or you could have applied it to my previous comment* instead of quibbling. It's a two-way street.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27756583