morugin

nat-werk-z

but Django is so integrated...

I have read like 1/3 of the comments but its interesting that the most interesting problem of everything we are talking about was only noticed by a non-programmer (so far). Everything that was talked about in the comments all hinge on the state of the art (SOTA) of ai in natural language processing (nlp). John Carmack recommended https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQQ-W_63UgQ stanford's nlp class (i didnt know who he was until i saw that post on hn). That class is good. it should take a long time to grok. you'll be solid up to LSTMs a general current standard.

I grew up poor. A common sentiment among my peers about math was "I will never use this". No teacher ever corrected this sentiment. Teachers and parents alike seemed to accept that the kids were not able to succeed academically. There was no malicious intent, just acceptance. The kids were actors in a social environment in which trying hard in academics was a source of stigma rather than status.

The overwhelming majority of kids (including me) received poor educations. I learned this in college when I was shocked by the difficulty of the courses. The majority of the kids passed high school because the standards were lowered.

I think lowering the standards in college is failing to target the source of the problem. I believe the further you get from hard skills (e.g., math or cs) the more relevant your soft skills become (e.g., cultural fit)[0]. The fact of the matter is that poor people have a distinct culture and it involves many elements that are not normative. I don't know if it is objectively more difficult to assimilate culturally or learn hard skills. On the other hand, I found it so difficult to assimilate to my PhD program in a social science that I didn't finish. I found programming to be much easier, albeit still a difficult mid-career change, than assimilating culturally. If it is the case that acquiring hard skills offers better opportunities for the poor to rise, then that is exactly what teachers and parents should be telling their kids. That is exactly what those with "sympathy for the poor" should be funding.

[0]Brendan Eich & the Googler who wrote about diversity are counter examples. I can (but I won't) argue the case they have better chances financially due to their hard skills compared to a person in a occupation lacking said skills.

I've wondered how it would be to train someone using an apprenticeship model.

I read some posts here by people who took a pay cut to become bootcamp instructors (for a season or two). A lot of them mentioned the satisfaction they got by being able to create real value in someone's life...

I guess only a certain demographic of people would even want to do an apprenticeship. Only apprenticeship programs I've heard of are for lower wage jobs. So, poor people may benefit from an apprenticeship. Mid-career changers might also benefit. CS degrees would be overqualified.

It would require significant time and effort. Not possible without company support. Still, to take a mind that can't see what we see to one that can and the amount of value created as a result, might be worth it.

That's how human morality works unfortunately.

capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

meritocracy: "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability."

morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Here's how I think about "us looking down on them":

Assume both capitalism and meritocracy. Then the question becomes: How should superiors (in profit and ability) treat inferiors? That's the morality question. Try putting yourself in the cafeteria worker's shoes (i.e., you do not have ability and profit). How should you be treated? Surely things other than ability and profit should matter. We think "good" people deserve "good" things. What makes a person "good"? Is someone good if they were born with and then cultivated ability? Doesn't the low wage worker also work hard? Then the differences for ability are determined at birth. Does something determined at birth concern one's morality in the present? How about profit? Does someone's wealth factor into their morality?

I do not think morality is concentrated in the powerful. I think there are immoral powerful people and moral powerless people. I think it is fair to treat a moral person with respect regardless of their power position. I cannot tell whether a person is moral by their ability and profit so, a priori any other evidence, I believe in being respectful to everyone.

tldr: I judge people based on their morality and power isn't a signal. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to look down upon a person based on their power position.

It's a complex issue but I think one of the main points from the opposition is that with increased wages will come decreased rates of employment.

I think this point really becomes an issue for people who believe that "if you work hard, you will get what you deserve (e.g., a middle to high wage)".

For them, the tradeoff is raising the wage is for a lazy worker vs. having a lazy worker be unemployed.

The point becomes less of an issue if you believe that there are hard working people making the best of their abilities who can only obtain low wage jobs.

Then it becomes an issue of whether you believe $15 should be the minimum for someone who works just as hard as you.

>The poorest member of that society would live like a king from our present day world.

You forget things such as: meaningful work, respect from society, crime, cultural differences between the poor and the rich, interclass upward mobility (see any sociology textbook), intellectual stimulation.

Not that it was intended, but I focused on two points of this post.

"I know that a lot of people in tech are really, actually trying to make the world a better place".

OP made some incorrect assumptions, but I think this one is right on.

Also,

"But people just now gaining power (e.g., people in tech), do have an opportunity to change some of those rules, and could very well "undo" some of the damage that has been done by the incumbents."

Hm, that's a side of gaming that is foreign to most people who call themselves "gamers" (even casual gamers). A game like starcraft is much more complex (by orders of magnitude) than chess, a game with a respected intelligence component. AI cannot (yet) outperform human teams in mobas like league of legends or overwatch. These are the titles i think of when thinking about "modern gaming".

Note the assumption that intellectual distinction is native. That is an assumption that is counter to the American assumption that any man can become anything he wants given the effort and desire. The people who want and try to earn a phd without the native ability are the problem James is stating the universities are creating. This is the third class of persons.

The other interesting thing was how the third class of persons obtains a phd is subjective. "Thus, partiality in the favored cases; in the unfavored, blood on our hands; and in both a bad conscience,--are the results of our administration."

Interesting thoughts from a man who has "distinguished intellect"

I couldn't have put it any better. "The freedom to try stuff". People who provide that opportunity.

The way I understand it, wealth is a part of the protestant work ethic.

God blesses the chosen with wealth, therefore you work hard to have wealth (because you want to be a chosen one).

Max Weber, right?