derevaunseraun

> At best, their parents may have some ability to either enroll them in a private school or move.

Situations like this have happened before and there are ways that kids can be bused/driven to different public schools. If the parents don't care or want to see their kid suffer then they're horrible people

Okay? You wanna explain or just be a dickhead?

> In most countries, they simply conscripted them. There was no "convincing"

But who conscripted them and dragged them off to war? Was it the politicians who decided to go to war? The "convincing" isn't necessary once it's reached critical mass

> And all this in the 70s.

It was just as bad before this

With WWI, how did the european powers manage to convince their civilians to go die in the trenches fighting a meaningless war? Or Vietnam in the US

The saying "if everyone jumped off the bridge..." is funny, because people will say it and forget what it means the moment everyone around them starts jumping off the bridge

> And I state that free healthcare and handouts make people more dependant on the government, since governments can always provide some reason for decreasing the handouts or healthcare provided for various reasons. For example, perhaps at some point a government might decide to withheld free healthcare for civilians that refuse vaccination. Civilians at the bottom of the food chain would then feel more pressured in taking some vaccination in order to keep access to free healthcare of government handouts.

This sounds right, but the same issue of refusing services is just as valid (if not more valid) for private businesses. It would be a harder argument with respect to public healthcare because the first amendment is binding with respect to the government and not private companies. Said private companies and insurance companies can (and likely do) charge more because of things like vaccination.

The problem is not a matter of private vs public healthcare but of punishing violation of the first amendment and enforcing legislation that protects religious minorities from discrimination, especially on insurance companies.

The private sector is more unregulated than the public sector with regard to things like religious freedom. Corporate HR departments can get away with more coercion and subterfuge than the government, hence the current situation in the US where employers control freedom of speech and other things more thoroughly than the government ever could. It's far easier to exert power through the corporations than it is through the government

Not all social media is bad. Bad social media is bad

This article has just enough ambiguity for the author to be seen as either an insufferable dickhead or a decent person in a bad situation

If he's complaining because his employees haven't memorized some niche part of documentation by heart and - gasp - need to look something up, then he's the former

But if he's complaining because employees don't understand basic fundamentals like scope, then he's entirely in the right

Actually edit:

> I started with offering my help. Can't solve a problem? Come get me. I will come over, sit on your chair, and finish your task. You'll sit next to me and memorize the way the work should be done.

I don't like this, It seems like bad management with subtle insecurity. imo it would be better to show the employee how to go about solving the problem themselves so that they can do it and feel confident in their own abilities, as opposed to just doing it for them

Also want to add that in the coming years they will start pushing biometric logins (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/11/techscape...) in the coming years. This will tie all accounts to the same biometric data and identity, which will make blanket data harvesting and profiling much easier and more economically feasible.

> As early as 2010, Facebook’s marketing director argued that “online anonymity has to go away.”

These companies have a financial incentive to destroy online anonymity to the detriment of the rest of society, and biometrics are the latest attack

> Privacy is not something that can be controlled at the individual level when you're up against billion dollar budgets.

But the billion dollar budgets are spread across an incredibly broad scale and have to handle a ridiculous amount of data. Certain patterns scale very well for the companies, e.g. using google chrome while logged into the google account

If we just avoid the big players and use a bunch of different, unaffiliated services, it makes mass surveillance more expensive and less likely to yield a strong ROI

Defeatism just gives these companies a better ROI with respect to surveillance, and it also makes us more susceptible to pushes to erode privacy, like the current one to replace passwords with biometric data

> For example, intentionally visit websites (manually or automated) that you don't believe it. This will trip up their algorithm. How are they supposed to know what you actually think or believe in?

Imo the claim "We can suggest what you should do next, what you care about. Imagine: We know where you are, we know what you like." is just a sales pitch to the data industry in disguise.

They know what we do, but it isn't possible to know what we think without making a bunch of assumptions

> Every advocate of Progress I've read or spoken to sees it as managing and extracting value from other people - and not establishing a basic stability from which others can be free to actualize and thrive. Even basic income is really about putting the managers of such a scheme at the centre of it, and it's to the point where even the very word 'free' is triggering. I'd argue that belief in Progress is not a benevolent, charitable, or altruistic sentiment.

A lot of people talk about progress in this way, but it's really just their own aggression expressed in ideological form

But I do think that progress is an actual thing: just look at what the printing press accomplished, and what the internet is in the process of accomplishing. I think that making more information accessible at a lower cost is the core of progress. Who knows where this will take us, but it's made certain things possible that were not possible before. Life expectancies are also longer than they've been. But this kind of progress isn't a moral imperative like the political kind. It's just something that happens as a result of production

imo the most bizarre thing about the Aztecs was the sheer magnitude of human sacrifice. In order for human sacrifice to be such a big tradition during times of peace implies a completely different sense of self and life as a whole. When the missionaries came and tried to put a stop to the sacrifices, the victims actually fought to be sacrificed. It's just bizarre (and unsettling) how culture can push people to do things to their own detriment

Source (alternative frontend w/ no ads): https://yewtu.be/watch?v=or6W4sXpl3c

this video is a work of art

From the podcast: "He was the golden chain to heaven. The only way to get to heaven was to allow him sexual activity with me."

...

What makes people join these groups to begin with?? Why do they believe such obvious lies?

> (in the sense that they end up being paid different amounts because they do different jobs because of the discrimination)

Or maybe there's the idea that some groups of people are more willing to do certain jobs than other groups of people and money isn't the only factor? Take investment banking for example: it's incredibly stressful and also predominantly male. Is it possible that more men than women choose to do investment banking because they value the money more than having low stress? Money isn't the only factor in evaluating inequality.

Your line of reasoning assumes that there are no other factors at play and each person is just a bag of demographic categories and nothing more. Also (more importantly) it assumes that everyone prioritizes money to the same degree, but we both know that this is wrong and certain demographics are more money-obsessed than others. But hey, maybe we can fix things by guilt tripping everyone to worship the dollar in equal quantities, maybe that will fix our ails as a society?

> Moreover there is also this idea that unions would reduce their career/salary prospects.

I don't know why it would, but you did also say it was just an idea. I have a hard time believing that an SWE union wouldn't be able to improve compensation and wlb

> So you have a lot of people here that seem to apply the labour market logic they're accustomed to, to a social relationship setup they ultimately see as a market -- which is a bad thing in my opinion.

Yeah I wholeheartedly agree with this because it's essentially the commodification of relationships, which makes me sick to my stomach

> systematic biases > outright discrimination against minority groups and women in payment

How do you know that demographic differences are significantly linked to wage differences and there aren't other factors at play? For example, a mother may want to spend time with her children and work part time instead of full time. Would you consider this discrimination? Do you think the mother should be paid a full time salary for working only part time? If the husband of the mother works full time and earns more because of it, would you consider this difference in compensation to be a product of privilege? I'd love to hear your thoughts

> e.g. the labour market, often revolves around free markets being good -- because it favors this typical HN's user position.

Care to explain? I'd imagine that something along the lines of unionization wouldn't hurt the salaries of tech workers.

> Thinking the imbalance is unfair is a mark of expected privilege as they have in other space

I find it interesting to refer to labor exchange value as a "privilege", as if it were something arbitrarily bestowed from some higher authority. Wage is the result of adversarial relationships between demand and supply and not one of some arbitrary authority doling out favors left and right with strings attached

> Stanford students live in brand new buildings with white walls. We have a $20 million dollar meditation center that nobody uses. But students didn’t ask for any of that. We just wanted a dirty house with friends.

From my experience, covid exacerbated this significantly. I don't know if it's just the universities or a broader cultural shift. And as the article says, the administrators introduced more "community initiatives" to exonerate themselves of gleefully destroying campus life and letting it atrophy for two years straight (while making students pay in person tuition for online school)

It feels like in the past couple years we've gone from a culture of spontaneity and grassroots initiative to one of bitter obsequiousness that's obsessed with taking itself seriously. The only way to subvert it is by turning it into one big joke

edit: thanks to OP for posting this magazine, it's the first thing I've seen in a while that actually has something to say

This is a red flag with regard to privacy. I have a feeling that they will push this sort of login the same way that they pushed 2FA, except the only difference being that for 2FA you can get different phone numbers and not compromise on privacy. In the case of biometrics, this makes it so that anonymity no longer exists

But in what way does this do any better than 2FA security wise, aside from convenience? imo 2FA is already overkill. I think the real reason they want this is it makes it easier to push federated login, easier to connect data points to a single identity for advertising.

My stance on this is that I refuse to use any sort of biometric login or service. I refuse to use any product that has it as a strict requirement

> There are those who have a strong self-interested opinion on "what should be done" that would be imprudent for most everyone relative to the factual reality. To convince more people of their preferred action, they work to undermine everyone's belief in the factual reality. So talking about what the public believes, independent of any proposed course of action, ends up being quite relevant.

You mention a "factual reality" in an area of disagreement but there is no such thing prior to the establishment of a consensus. The phrase "undermine everyone's belief in the factual reality" is misleading because it assumes that there is already some established consensus that is being undermined prior to its own establishment. But of course, one of the ways to establish a consensus is to talk about it as if it were already established and legitimate

> So talking about what the public believes, independent of any proposed course of action, ends up being quite relevant.

I think that talking about consensus can be useful, but I've yet to find an example of anyone discussing what the public "believes" in complete disinterest and without some implicit course of action

> Artificial intelligence is a very fast-moving frontier and what (and who) to believe about it is hard for a non-expert to decide. Crypto is another example of a big field that seems to contain conflicting experts. For the lay public it is very hard to know who to believe.

The "lay public" doesn't care in the first place. They don't have the time to read various studies and journals to compare conflicting points of view. What they do have time for is news media, and a whole lot of it

> But sometimes experts are wrong. And very often, there’ll be another expert who has a different, even contrary, professional opinion on the same subject. So non-experts are left having to decide which expert we want to believe.

The non-experts aren't concerned with who to believe, they're concerned about what should be done. Believing something is true != thinking something should be done (ref Hume's is-ought problem).

I'm convinced that the author of this isn't complaining that the public has read various conflicting scientific studies and is unable to make a decision, they're complaining because the public is split on what should be done, which is the real source of disagreement

What should be done is a moral question that's independent of the results of any single experiment. To propose that a group of experts "decide" what's moral for the rest of society would be analogous to establishing a public religion

I see people in the comments trying to justify this change because the apps need to request for permissions, but WHY exactly would google want to get rid of this info? What benefit does it bring to the user, if any?

If anything, it harms the user by preventing them from seeing what permissions apps will access in an easy to read format.

Why did google even decide to do this in the first place? My best guess is it makes users more likely to let an application access permissions after they've gone ahead and installed it, generating more ad $$$ in the process. But is there any other reason?

Why is this site becoming more and more infested with politics? It's going to end up suffocating anything actually worthwhile

> However Silicon Valley (San Mateo & Santa Clara county), San Jose, and east bay are all thriving relative to their past

Are car break ins relatively common in San Mateo and Santa Clara?

> The construct is that society puts people into racial buckets.

So let's say you apply for a job somewhere and they ask the race question on the job application. I highly doubt that interviewers are given this information. Who exactly is holding people accountable in this system?

> Yet I'm classified as "white", which is absurd and shows that racial groups are absurd, and not even a scientifically acknowledged phenomenon, but just a social construct

Who's doing the classifying? Most of the time it's you checking a box in some application form

If it's just a social construct, theoretically what's stopping you from identifying as a different race? An honor system?

Since there is no legal assignment of race, what's keeping people from just lying?