wootland

All humans have a will to live, Hamas is fighting against occupation not to commit suicide. The Israeli theocracy however seems to have lost control of all logic and instead is operating in the death throws of an apartheid state coming to its end. The world would be safer with more opposition to Israel.

MAD is a well established doctrine for deterrence. The people running Iran are running Iran, not the world. The people running Israel however have undue influence on my and many other countries.

I'm far more concerned about Israel's nuclear capacity. If anything, Iran will help keep them in check if it can develop its own nuclear deterrence.

The US supports Israel and itself causes terror in the Middle East. US citizens are safest if we withdraw completely and sanction Israel, like we would any other country violating human rights.

Israel attacked an Iranian embassy. That's Israel escalating. Also, as a US citizen I can say unequivocally that I do not consider Iran my enemy. Israel on the other hand, I definitely do. The tide is turning with the younger generations.

Nothing, Israel is trying to broaden the war and drag the US and western countries further into it.

I don't think he's expecting anything, just protesting and drawing awareness. It worked too because we're now talking about it.

And just to confirm Reid Hoffman and YC's affilation: https://twitter.com/ycombinator/status/1656675146588110850

I've never seen "productivity" tied to compensation. Those with connections and the ability to self-promote receive the most pay. Those who don't understand this focus on being "productive" to help improve their boss's bottom line at their own expense.

There are reasons beyond direct redistribution of the CEO's salary to take issue with the vast inequality represented by that 1,000X. The board and CEO will place all of their network in the executive ranks, cutting off access to rank and file employees. These people also use their out-sized reward to have a huge impact on society at large outside of the company. The negative externalities created by exec compensation are borne by the public.

If by the cheaters you mean the executives and investors who personally capture all of the profit, then I couldn't agree more. The reason that we're suffering from "inflation" and see record high wealth inequality is because the people at the top are hoarding all of the capital and profit leaving little for the vast majority of people.

This isn’t a problem. That’s the point.

I’m saying that it’s pointless to get upset at someone getting a raise when the person in charge makes orders of magnitude the amount of money you do. That is the problem, not labor doing what it can to eke out a microscopic amount of leverage.

I'd add d) when all of the gains are captured by execs and investors, if you don't do everything you can to maximize your return and minimize your input, you're being exploited.

It's strange to me that anyone would care about people cheating at job interviews and not say CEO pay that's 1,000X the average employee. More power to those who can balance things in their favor against those who have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

I strongly disagree. Celebs and athletes are innocuous compared to billionaires and politicians.

I can only speak for myself but I would never work non-remote again, even if I had my own private office.

> “I strongly believe the office experience should be at the same level as luxury residential and hospitality,” Shvo previously told The Chronicle. “In the last two years, we’ve made our homes into our offices, now it’s time to make our offices feel like our homes.”

Private bathrooms for every employee? No commute? The office can never "feel like my home", my home doesn't have my co-workers in it. It's an environment 100% of my design.

> No. They dont.

I'm responding to this post:

> If the UK ever needed to revolt against the government the monarch serves as way in which the public (and armed forces) could side with the state over the government. I cannot express how much I like that our armed forces swear allegiance to a largely powerless Monarch that represents the state rather than Rishi Sunak.

> It’s getting tiring to read journalist pieces who look at the extreme outliers of tech (Holmes, SBF, Hsieh) and try to tell us that everyone is like this.

I think the message is that these people were created by throngs of investors, media and fan adulation. There's an entire culture of revering people from SBF to Elon Musk to Bill Gates to Marc Andreessen. Some of those people have exploded more spectacularly than others, but the mechanisms and culture that create them are the same.

Your statement is somewhat contradictory. The monarch has zero power but also controls the military and can violently oppose the government? He’s also powerful enough that people can be arrested for protesting his coronation. Democracy was created precisely because history shows people will be consistently oppressed when they don’t govern themselves.

> Specifically, laws around limiting "improper" behaviour like rowdy protests, being rude online, and consuming porn that's a little too edgy seem to be ways in which our dislike of improper behaviour manifest politically.

Jimmy Saville was way worse than any porn, yet his main enabler just became king. The outrage about the “impolite” seems very unevenly distributed.

Those people are complicit with all of the human rights abuses perpetrated by the royal family. Without them, the monarchy could be abolished. They are the very source of the problem.

> Newborn babies aren't anti-monarchy either.

Actually they are since monarchy is at odds with the basic human rights we are all born with.

As someone who is anti-monarch I have to admit that this seems like the logical extension of monarchy and exactly what democracy is meant to help with. Can I ask why someone wouldn't be anti-monarch in 2023?

> While I agree that disrupting a ceremony now is in poor taste

Most people would consider coronating Jimmy Saville's BFF king to be in extremely poor taste. The protesters are the only respectable thing about this farce.

If the executives are "just human" then they should be paid like humans along with everyone else. They shouldn't have their cake and eat it too. If you get paid orders of magnitude more than everyone else, you should take on orders of magnitude more risk (including going to prison when the company breaks the law).

I think unless you're firing the executives that overhired, you're not fixing the root cause of the problem which is bad leadership. There's a "hack" that's causing the market for leadership to be highly inefficient and distorted and that's class solidarity between the upper classes. Executives are mostly placed for the favors they can offer capital owners, not their "performance".

Correct, it looks like they tweaked the model's response to cover for Hoffman. There are many news reports about this, the answers are also very strangely opinionated. You can try the same questions in OpenAI to see something more accurate that's based on the data it was trained on and not later editorialization.