bdhe

Uff, first you're ironically doing it and then ...

There's such a kind? Got some data (not anecdotes) to support this?

There's a nuance you're missing. These are not two comparable wrongs.

The CA proposition was put to a vote. Literally direct democracy. The TX legislature had a special session to put this in without voter input.

The CA proposition is time bounded, the TX one is not.

The CA proposition was in reaction to the TX one. If TX did not mid-cycle redistrict I am confident CA wouldn't.

Can you still really claim the two were equivalent?

What kind of CEO, CIO/CTO?

I'm sorry, but this is almost a parody of the enlightened centrism meme.

The Democrats have attempted to pass several anti-gerrymandering bills. One in the Senate in 2024, one in the House in 2021. Both stonewalled by Republicans.

The Republican SCOTUS appointees allowed partisan gerrymandering, the Democratic ones were in the dissent.

California's prop 50 was IN RESPONSE to an unprecedented mid-term gerrymandering effort by Texas at the behest of Trump.

I just picked one example, but I could easily write similar responses that show very stark differences between the parties when it comes to wars, stacking the court, war with Iran, and more.

You keep saying that but you're talking about it. Surely there are reports or something. Given the Republican trifecta and all the anti-DEI initiatives from the federal government who is the one not doing the allowing in the first place?

Is there data supporting this: "ethnic cartel who refuses to hire anyone but their own people"? I've worked with plenty of folks from this "ethnic cartel" in my chain of leadership and my anecdotal experience is nothing of the sort.

Is there data supporting this: "ethnic cartel who refuses to hire anyone but their own people"?

> The guys I know who work at OpenAI just want an expensive car and a hot wife to fuck.

This goes a fair bit beyond an insult. I'm calling out the frankly reductive and sophomoric frat boy thinking behind this statement.

I think some of it might be nihilism without actually thinking about it more deeply and trying to be constructive. Some of it is just .. well .. shallow thinking perhaps without much life experience, I wouldn't speculate.

I never claimed there isn't a crisis. I think the motivation of mathematicians is a mixture of prestige and genuine curiosity and understanding about these abstract problems. I think recent advances are creating a reckoning on how the community-at-large addresses these incentives. It is highly reductive to argue that the only motivation is as crass as you put it.

This is a deeply cynical (not to mention, a touch misogynistic) take on human motivation. This might be true for your small circle of friends but I think it reflects your thinking a lot more than some deep objective truth about people and their careers.

See professor Williams' thoughts on a recent conjecture that openai proved: https://people.csail.mit.edu/virgi/thoughts.txt

I said list of references. You'd read the primary sources and make up your political opinion. But LLMs are good at providing pointers, much like wikipedia.

I gotta be honest, given the LLMs we have today, it takes less words to get a list of references and context to read than it takes to type out your comment.

If you're genuinely curious about why people's views on Israel have shifted you could've got yourself excellent information with a simple prompt as such:

"Give me a brief neutral summary backed with reliable sources on the state of tensions in the Middle East today and the role played by Israel and other states. Help me understand why people's views on Israel have shifted so much since the start of the war in Gaza?"

Uber has ~ 34,000 corporate employees. What sorts of inferences do you want to make from an engineering blog post with the names of 4 employees?

IIM as in Indian Institute of Management?

Absolutely not.

Sundar's education is: IIT-Kharagpur Bachelors in Eng Stanford Masters in Eng Wharton MBA

Maybe you're thinking of the last one

I don't think you know what category error is. Or at least, back to my point, you're not communicating as though you do.

I think you're strawmanning my point - no one asks you to act like a philosopher 24/7, but this exchange shows you're very far away from that bar.

> The video footage doesn't show how disruptive he was being; but I find it reasonable that he was clapping in a way that the the person running the public comment meeting had specifically asked people not to do in the name of expediently getting to as many comments as possible.

You're suggesting that the bar arbitrarily set by a councilmember on what counts as sufficient disruption to hurt expediency* trumps what seems like just clapping and agreement -- one would argue is clearly protected speech per the 1st amendment and I'd argue squarely within the spirit of why we have public comments in the first place?

I think that's a pretty slippery slope and enables projecting power through process, not something we want from our elected officials.

*an aside - why is expediency the goal? if this is a contentious topic, schedule more time so the focus is on receiving public feedback!)

Because it simply isn't. Philosophy isn't about wordy refusals (ironically the same complaint you try to levy) but about reasoning, knowledge, and abstract ideas. None of which come through in your comment, nor can come through refusing to engage in communication.

I'm struggling to find a counter argument in your response. You say it is a deeply prejudiced argument? Why? You say blinders? What are those?

What is a philosophical statement?

One tendency I've noticed is that people well versed in philosophy can communicate well. Just anecdotally. Not something I am seeing here in this response.

Honestly there are so many levers we could pull off within Capitalism to both meaningfully improve the lives of people while keeping together all the things that are genuinely good about it (such as the central thesis of rewarding risk and innovation).

- better safety nets paid through higher taxes and closing down loopholes (such as buybacks)

- stronger regulatory enforcement to reduce the power of monopolies / monopsonies

- stricter rules around tax-payer investments / subsidies into companies (sure SpaceX gets to have billions to shore up our competitiveness but there must be a mechanism for the tax payer to have board representation)

etc. etc.

The list goes on. Honestly it doesn't take a lot (besides political will and escaping the capture of Citizens United) to move the needle so that the median income or bottom 10th percentile lifestyle meaningfully improves while we no longer have wealth horded to the level of having centibillionaires.

It does require a government that operates with much less corruption than we have, so it is more idealistic than not, but very easy to imagine.

What does this mean? I thought Meta has something like 80,000 employees. Meta had about 1,400 H-1B employee petitions last year. Even if we assume that number held for Meta's entire existence, that's less than 25,000 H-1B employees. Less than a third of Meta are presumably immigrants.

Have I got something wrong or is there this belief that Meta doesn't hire any Americans?

I think it is easy to argue that the Chinese govt exerts pressure in "unique ways" - see Jack Ma's 180 in attitude after house arrest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown

Is there one CEO in the US or UK with a similar story?

There's a whole wikipedia article discussing how it is both a logical fallacy and how it is often used as a tool of propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Please don't engage in whataboutism. One should be able to criticize China's actions without calling into discussion actions of other nations.

Do you go about threads criticizing US govt actions drawing parallels to similar actions in other regimes like China or Russia?

What facts would you point to, to argue that the Democratic party is "owned by Israel" more than the Republican party?

Hamas support or Palestinian support?

> and it quickly grew beyond any reason

Why did it quickly grow?

> 100% of white western civilization

Do the republics in the Caucasus region (and Russia) count in this calculation or not?

> However, the situation has also been significantly escalated by often-violent obstructionists

Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)

If it is the latter, then isn't the blame to be placed squarely on the original enforcement philosophy?

Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.

Does anyone have a good understanding of the reasoning behind these targeted operations being in places one wouldn't typically associate with the average illegal/undocumented immigrant? I'd think of CA, TX, AZ, FL, and other border states as being the primary places one would start off with before heading inland.

If the premise is that folks crossed over the unprotected Southern border, Maine is basically about as far as one can get while still remaining in the contiguous 48.