classicsnoot

And the HN trend continues: attack the speaker, ignore the words, congratulate self, move on.

In the spirit of disclosure, I agree with Yarvin on many points. One position I've never seen thoroughly rebutted is the mutual doctrine/dogma of every public and ivy league University system. Just like the Catholic Church, you get turf disputes, subtle thematic variations, and degrees of skill differences. Just like the Protestants, you get dramatic variations of window dressing. But I challenge anyone to demonstrate a core, ideological difference held by any number of institutions. Obviously, Bob Jones University doesn't count, and why should they? The bare handful of private institutions that deviate from the Norm do not count in any other setting. Harvard™ makes an edict, the Church of Learn follows suit, heretics are smoked out, and Progress marches forward.

I think this is portentous. I think this is a canary that many will regret not noticing its asphyxiation. SSC, by most any measure, is a dyed in the wool progressive. The whole thing feels like a purge that is winding up and spiraling off into the next round eliminating undesirables. I wouldn't be surprised if the next victim is the triggerman/journalist who is responsible for this instance.

Can you refute the statement or do you just find it troubling? I know the trope is that Intel people are all crew cut conservatives, but, like most Hollywood stereotypes, that is utter codswallop. The American University Complex churns out left leaning specialists, and the intelligence agencies hire exclusively from the AUC. It is not a very big leap at all. Stztrok and Page are very representative of modern IC.

I might be a lowballer myself. I'm not a fan of Fox News, or any legacy media for that matter, but I take umbrage to the idea that the source dictates the recipient. CNN consistently inflates and mislabels information to fit a narrative, but that doesn't mean the people watching are by necessity failing at reasoning.

Keep posting. The bar for HN is "interesting topics." This absolutely qualified. Also, keep the faith. Food is the great leveller. The world will probably come back around to appreciating those that give it to us.

Can you define "lowball intelligence?" That seems like a bigoted term and probably violates HN rules.

I wanted to be clear that i didn't come up with the ideas I related, and I have gotten in trouble with HN moderation for linking the blog in the past.

On a certain blog that is completely outside acceptable standards for wrongthink and political correctness, a very popular topic of late is why NASA seems to have it in for Elon Musk Personally and SpaceX generally. The commonly stated reasons, and I will be paraphrasing and transliterating freely, are: HR culture defining administration wide objectives and methods and reasoning, professional embarrassment over languishing reputation, gross incompetence, turf defense of budget and status, and a desire to stay firmly planted on Terra while being lauded for dreaming of the stars.

I am always skeptical of any argument that is unfamiliar, but more and more it does appear that NASA has lost its way. The shuttle was an obvious mistake in retrospect; there may even be some credibility to the obscure theory that NASA only did it to further separate themselves from DoD. I think NASA has become a political creature that is less concerned with science and more concerned with SCIENCE™. If this is the case, they will fight tooth and nail against any expansion of manned space exploration (because it will be both private and military in nature), the will fight against innovation that doesn't spring from their own workshop(s), and they will use Cape Canaveral (and their heritage facilities/infrastructure) as a way to bully "adversaries" into submission.

I hope this isn't the case, and if it is, I hope they can reverse whatever practices and policies that have led us to where we are. As it stands though, it appears NASA is more like OSHA then it is like its historical instance.

After reading the Bender Affidavit, I can't look at headlines saying anything about Saudi Arabia and not wonder what Qatar is trying to make me believe.

>Research has shown...more qualified candidates...

First, can you link a source? Second, what does "more qualified" mean in the context of politicians? They are selected by popularity in the majority; capabilities are downstream from likeability. This, one could argue that "more qualified" could be construed as "excellent hair" or "large breasts." This is not to say that the job of political official does not have constraints or optimums, but the method of job placement is the issue in terms of my question.

But it was a contributory factor, probably the most ubiquitous in the fall of most empires.

Why was blargmaster33's comment killed within 1 minute of posting? Which guideline does it violate? What rule does it break? Most importantly, if it is a false statement, what proves that it is so?

I struggle to see the logic behind your assertion. If the capacity for involvement of female creators/contributors is limited by the likelihood of possible sexual harassment, then how do you account for female involvement/contribution in microblogging (specifically Instagram), discos & clubs, and large scale social events. These three types of thing all have the very rich potential for sexual harassment opportunities, yet it would appear a lot of women flock to them all the same. I would argue that the motivation to be involved is the largest factor in involvement, by any party, and consequences are secondary, if even considered, depending on potential status gain.

The relevance to the issue at hand is that science fiction is already a subgenre (though it is on the rise) that has a rather narrow range of fan base with an even more narrow range of potential authors. There are so few people writing good science fiction; I honestly wonder how much the carnal predilections of a now dead but no less prolific author is moving the needle.

If you could magically make science fiction authorship on par with being a YouTube personality in terms of perceived status, an army of Weinsteins and Dworkins couldn't keep little girls and boys out of crafting stories.

I have to imagine soon, given that we are about to pass the third, impassable deadline for saving the world from climate change (2020).

Always interesting how money data is usually offered up with no context; almost always a ploy to guide thought. In one of my case law classes, the professor had us read a Friend of the Court letter from the CEO of a company that specialized in the wiring for both consumer and industrial vehicles. The case centered on factories being offshored. The CEO was attempting to demonstrate how they had bent over backwards to keep their operations local and their pay high, and as an example he said how starting pay in ~1973 was $7 an hour. The teacher rolled nodded and smiled at the groans of dismay from my woke classmates, and soon followed a round of complaint and anger for the wealthy. Instead of getting pigeon holed as a right-wing shill, I googled the value of 7 1970 dollars in 2019, which was roughly $40. Imagine a world wherein low/no-skilled (by silicon valley view) labourers could start at $40 an hour working for a CEO that works to keep jobs in the country he owes his success to.

A bit of an aside, I know. But it is so frustrating how we've surrendered context for controversy so we can drum up rage and clicks instead of understanding they complicated reality. I hear Belarus is very clean and many of its citizens love their country, but that's probably propaganda.

I absolutely support that for two reasons. 1) all six would not be monolithic in their values, temperament, and concerns. 2) the point of my position is not to have more opportunities for my way of thinking to prevail.

If GDP is the only metric you are going to consider, then the US and China are doing just fine. But, and i don't think this is a stretch, there may be some other factors to consider. For California in particular, i suggest you look up what percentage of the population pays the taxes the state runs on, how many of the state's population subsist on social welfare benefits, and what how much federal assistance ameliorates state debt concerns. I posit that California as a stable state is a house of cards, both economically and ecologically speaking.

The realities of Winner Take All is that the US regularly omits wide swathes of people from the vote. Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Stating that power is distributed based on the constitution is naive, given what the constitution says taken in context with how things are.

Omit Iowa and/or North Dakota and it doesn't change all that much. Both sides of this same argument are precisely the point of the Electoral College. It handicaps high density populations and skews toward rural areas. It is electoral affirmative action.

That is a very appropriate user name. Why should the most populous state out of 50 states get to decide how the other 49 go about their business? State lines are borders, which are arbitrary delineations within a given region according to many. What makes California so important? Is it the money potential, which implies the wealthy should rule (AKA aristocracy)? Is it the fact that it is 12% of the total population?

It also doesn't happen to lean democratic. That is the product of years of manipulation, lobbying, and cultural shift. Regardless, the point of the EC is to balance out population centers and rural areas as their contributions are different in terms of the Nation. It is an apples to oranges situation. Leaving aside the fact that California is an absolute disaster in terms of social and ecological management by their government, there is no logic outside of Marxist dialectical approach that makes a coherent argument for why they should get to pick the president.

What is this country supposed to stand for? Leaning on that trope to buttress a subjective opinion is a paper thin argument. This country is not supposed to stand for one thing. The State system was intended to allow for multiple interpretations of religion, culture, and identity. The federal system was intended to keep the State system balanced and safe. The rural areas deserved more influence because their contribution to the long term continuity of the country was something that couldn't be measured by population alone.

Shocking to your sensibilities and education level though it may be, land has always been more important to stability, peace, and prosperity than individual people. It is only in hyper consumer states (like the US coastal cities) where people find themselves so immensely important that they thing the Individual is the highest value commodity in society. They are programmed to believe this from a very early age, as well a falsely assumed omniscience about values, ethics, and truth. The vast majority of humans on the planet are far more in touch with their actual value relative to the system as well as their capabilities in that system. This is why most humans pack up and leave when the system is against them on both counts, as opposed to digging in and fighting back.

None of this would be baffling (in terms of the Electoral College) if you took the time to read the primary sources regarding it. I can understand how it would be surprising and baffling if you are operating off of third hand, highly subjective editorializing.

NaPoVoInterCo is a terrible idea. The idea of states giving up even more sovereignty is silly bordering on ridiculous. CGP Grey has all the outward indications of being a smart person, but the blase way he approaches this subject is unsettling as i think it reflects how many of the "nominally smart" view this issue.

The term popular vote is very deceptive. If the only vote that mattered was the national election of the chief executive, it might be useful. But if voting is viewed holistically, as in local, state, and federal, there is no such thing as a popular vote. The vast majority of US citizens do not fully participate, and it is a large minority that participate in the national selection.

Further, many people love to point out Hillary gaining more popular votes in 2016, but they never seem to point out that this was almost solely due to California. Subtract California voters, and the competition's outcome makes perfect sense. This is precisely what the Electoral College was built to do. Just because 1 quarter of the entire nations social welfare beneficiaries decide to congregate in one place and all vote the same way does not mean they deserve to pick the president.

I have to wonder why the video didn't even touch the genesis of the NaPoVoInterCo. Just glancing at the map at the top of this link will tell you everything you need to know about both the politics and the purpose of this scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

This is a plan to turn the US into a one party state. This guy explains why that is not only a good thing, it is inevitable. After you read his piece, you should look up his net worth and where and how he lives: https://medium.com/s/state-of-the-future/the-great-lesson-of...

I fear there are dark times ahead. At least CGP Grey will be very entertained as he watches us collapse from London, a city completely inoculated from demographic shift, political infighting, and terrible consequences for poor decisions.