Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't describe the cliche post-highschool hard left swing of someone with a sheltered upbringing as "broadening".

I don't mean to be too dismissive, but I spent enough time in a university town after my own graduation to see this trajectory play out a number of times. Kids come in, and adopt a new set of ideas that suit their new environment just as blindly as they adopted ideas compatible with their previous environment.

Before I make it sound too much like I'm painting with a broad brush, I expect people's political positions to change around this time. There is a difference between a position someone can articulate from their first principles, and someone that sounds like they're repeating the media they picked those positions up from. I'd rather have a productive disagreement than talk to someone I agree with that can't show their thought process.

Eventually they might have their mind broadened. But it's not guaranteed. And if they discover pot when they got to the university and/or internalize their change of heart as a 2nd rebellion against their parents, it'll take a few extra years.

You definitely are “painting with a broad brush”

As someone who has also spent a lot of time in a college environment I disagree that students blindly accept new positions to suit what’s around them. In fact, I would say a change in opinion shows they were not only able to take in new information, but also make the personal decision to change firmly held values that no longer make sense.

99% of his post is about learning new things.

>hard left swing

I mean, it's the swing that's hard, not the positions. That's why I said the bit about positions I support but with but reasoning I can't. But in retrospect that distinction wasn't that clear, my writing is almost as muddled as when I speak out loud.

jedberg didn't spill out the terrible recent-convert gobbledygook I'm used to hearing. Maybe he's did it right, or maybe he's adult-ed up his standing in the meantime, but it fits the mold and was as good a place as any to talk about the archetype.

True story. At work, folks going out for lunch. Ask if I want dim sum. I had never heard of it. All I could think of, in redneck fashion, was "that boy ain't bright, he's dim some." I declined going. Still not sure what it is. I think it is a soup.

But why didn't you just google it or look it up? In the time it took to write out this comment you could've googled it and seen the brief one-sentence description that appears and explains it. I get not doing that in the moment but you seem to be implying this happened a while back and you've been okay just assuming they're all going and eating soup for lunch. Were you never curious about it after that initial invitation?

You're truly missing out of one of life's greatest pleasures. Carts and carts of delight, oh what a sight!

I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan. But no it isn't a soup. It's a bunch of small little bites and they generally bring them around on carts and you tell them what you want and then pay for what you eat. Usually the items are steamed and the carts have hot water at the bottom to keep the steam going as they cart it around.

It's Chinese buffet. Or maybe more like tapas. It's a great way to sample the huge variety of Chinese food. Some of which, to my Americanized palette, is quite alarming.

Edit: Deep-fried chicken feet vs pork rinds is a toss-up, I admit. But there are items about which I've never gotten a clear explanation ;)

Try something new, you may like it.

bro you gotta try cha siu bao

If you don’t know what a food is you can just go with them and then you’ll know after

These accomplishments are easily possible by moving to uptown of top 10 cities. You don’t need 4 year college.

"Going to university does not broaden the mind" is a claim about sufficiency, not about necessity.

I would agree, going the other way.

Before university, all I knew of rich folks was that they poached the good teachers from my high school (we were a magnet school in the poorer inner city, back when cities were poor). Lets just say that I found that there was more nuance to all those kids from suburbia.

I went into university steadfastly believing the roster sheet of progressive policies. Then there was economics class, and the in-depth conversations around that, and I came to realize that a lot of policies are double-edged swords, either difficult to implement correctly, or just outright too good to be true. For example, you can't really elide the fact that prices provide important signaling to the markets, that in turn influence supply and demand.

That having been said, I don't think the libertarian wing nuts I'd met came to the same sort reckoning,... they still seemed to think the free markets are magic pills... so I figure that I learned more from the experience than they did.

University was a confusing time. There were a lot of folks who were a lot more privileged than me, who were smarter than me, but not very motivated. It would take many years after college before it became clear how things even out. (They are still on good footing thanks to their privilege, and they're not bad people. I have sometimes enjoyed seeing them again – when I do – like it was old days. I don't envy them anymore. And I wouldn't switch places either.)

Life is complicated. University forces a kind of mixing – and a certain kind of critical thinking – that forces you to look at how complicated it is. Sometimes, things just are.

I've been to the other end of the spectrum, been around lots of people who never went to school or who dropped out. Or who had it easy in university. I interact with folks who never had to pick up that kind of critical thinking. It eventually becomes plain and clear the kind of subtle difference it makes in people's lives over time, and across generations.

It is in life as it is in board games. Randomness and complexity obscure the "winning" strategies.

I distinctly remember the day I was in line at the bursars. The girl in front of me paid for the entire semester on her credit card! I had heard that people with huge limits existed but it did not even occur to me that tuition would be one if the things you could pay with a VISA.

Article is about German university. You can't assume it is the same as American experience.

My university was not about broadening anything either and peer group was way more homogenous then high school or extracurricular clubs.

different countries, different experiences. the research was done in germany, and to a german student none of the kind of experiences you had are available.

Why are social programs necessary?

Because everyone isn't as smart as you are, and with the elimination of many jobs at the bottom of the economy we no longer have a good way to ensure the pie of wealth us equitably divided.

But looking at it as a pie that needs to be divided is wrong. One of the core tenets of capitalism (well, in theory) is that wealth is created literally from nothing. It's not a zero-sum game. In practice, unfortunately, one needs certain prerequisites to be able to do this. So in my view, the problem is not that something is unequally divided, but that a class of people systematically aren't able to create enough wealth and so are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty.

"wealth is created literally from nothing."

Most of the real wealth I see being created has ultimately come from the exploitation of natural resources. Far from being 'nothing', most of these limited resources (which in another theory belong to all life on Earth) require underpaid 'human resources' to turn them into the highly-profitable 'nothing' of which you speak.

Much of which winds up in the garbage. (E.g., here in the U.S. we build housing to last for maybe two generations.) If anything, much real wealth comes from turning valuable resources into nothing.

Primary extraction (mining, farming, forestry, fishing) is something like 6% of the global economy.

On average, the things you or I use consist of 6% exploitation of natural resources and 94% of labor after that. Natural resources are important, but now (as opposed to 19th century) they are a tiny part of what we make and use, they are not the main part of wealth.

How do you estimate the "consumption" of clean water and air? How much of the non extraction economy relies on the extraction happening?

I cant imagine how to estimate those numbers, but I do imagine they'd be significant.

I see a significant difference between 'real wealth' and the 'global economy'. Apples and pears.

I'm not talking about equality, but rather equitablity - the system should be fairer than it is, meaning people ought to be compensated fairly for the value they contribute to the system, the issue is, they're not.

My beliefs on sharing the pie are summed up by the following quote "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" the issue is, we've systematically deprived those of lower ability of paths to opportunity, and deprived those who do succeed of their fair share of the pie.

Shouldn't it be quite clear to us right now that this theoretical assumption never worked because we have limited resources on this planet?

The older I get the more I realise resources are limited in some ways but not in others. Running out of petroleum isn't as bad as it sounds. Other candidates have already appeared. Reclamation will occur.

That said, polluting the air and water is still not a good idea. Burning coal is still stupid.

Humanity had more than enough food to feed everyone but we are too greedy at the top to actually do so. We dump food in stupid ways for stupid reasons.

Actually, the theory is the opposite: Wealth can be created from anything.

But, it has to come from somewhere.

This is a very reasonable comment I completely agree with. Even if you don't agree, it's a valid point of view that contributes to the discussion, it doesn't deserve to be downvoted.

> One of the core tenets of capitalism (well, in theory) is that wealth is created literally from nothing.

Yeah, and that theory is nonsense

Its in my opinion that people don't use the computer properly. There's very little you gain from social programs that you can't gain if you watch the right kind of content, read the right kind of articles, and just talk to people.

I've met far more smart people on the internet than I could ever meet in real life. In fact most people I meet in real life are stupid.

> In fact most people I meet in real life are stupid.

I've also felt like this for a long time before I grew up.

Maybe you have better peers than I do

Because not everyone is born into the privilege necessary to “pull up their own bootstraps”. In fact it was on college that I learned a lot about libertarianism, and was a strong believer in pure capitolisim. As I’ve aged I’ve realized that it just doesn’t work.

It's not privilege, privilege makes it easier, but it's certainly not impossible without it - unless you count things like intelligence and personality to be privilege.

That said, a certain subset of the population doesn't have the wherewithal, drive or ability to do it - and for an even smaller, the best in life they can hope for is to perform some sort of manual labor.

We mustn't forget about the self selection bias of being smart - we tend to only socialize and know other smart people - meaning, don't fall into the fallacy of assuming you're the median.

> It's not privilege, privilege makes it easier, but it's certainly not impossible without it.

No, but it is much, much harder. Assuming all human beings are equal, how can you justify working a lot harder for the same outcome?

As an example, we generally want to help the disabled, it is generally a good policy to remove barriers, install lifts etc. not for them to 'just learn to walk properly' or whatever.

> No, but it is much, much harder. Assuming all human beings are equal, how can you justify working a lot harder for the same outcome?

I can't, that's my point we need to provide good opportunities for people of all abilities, not just for the smartest, we're failing at this goal.

I want a more just and equitable society not necessarily just an equal one.

> I can't, that's my point we need to provide good opportunities for people of all abilities, not just for the smartest

I agree, I was talking about affordability. You can be super smart, but if you're 2/3 as smart and also rich, you're still likely to do better in life than the smart, poor kid would.

I'd agree, I believe poverty is at the root of most of our social ills, and we need to make a serious effort to solve it. We can do it while trying to solve the other social ills, but without solving poverty, we won't fix the other issues.

Such an experience could be described as the replacement of one ideology with another, rather than an increase in personality trait openness.

What's the difference between north and south China?

North is generally colder in climate to the more tropical and warmer South, Northern Chinese traditionally eat grains and wheat-based foods like baozi and jiaozi (dumplings) while Southern Chinese will eat rice and rice-flour based foods like rice noodles. Northern China was occasionally under the influence of nomadic powers which shaped its culture. Southern culture is shaped by the gradual immigration of Han Chinese peoples from the North and assimilation of the native peoples into Han Chinese. Roughly before 1000 AD, Northern China was more economically powerful and the South was generally a hinterland while roughly after 1000 AD Southern China was more economically powerful (for example, see Guangdong/Canton region). Non-Han tribal minorities in the North tend to be descended off nomadic horse tribes while in the South they are usually descended off river and mountain-based tribes.

As of Modern China, the North tends to be politically powerful as it is dominated by Beijing while the South tends to be economically powerful, dominated by Shanghai, Guangdong/Canton, Shenzhen, etc.

For more info, click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_and_southern_China

To some degree, similar to the North-South Indian cultural divide if you want to look that up too.

To add on to the informative sibling comment, historically South China communities have been more isolated from each other due to its rugged terrain, whereas North China has been dominated by its plains, especially the central plain. Hence the phenomenon that in the North, historically, Mandarin dominated as the lingua franca, whereas the south was host to a staggering variety of Chinese languages.

Very different foods. The north is a lot more spicy stuff. The south is more about sauces and freshness.

Sitting next to my Chinese girlfriend in Chongqing.

Sichuan food is “麻”, which is a way to say it makes your tongue numb. Not “spicy” (though to me it’s very spicy).

North China food is normal, not spicy ( like dumplings, baozi, and such).

South China food is “清淡” , or something that is light. Typically this applies to Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Taiwan, etc.

But east China (shanghai, jiangsu, ) is sweet food

It's the complete other way around. Source: Lived in China, ask any Chinese person.

It is understandable why they would think this. I've had multiple people from Guangdong refer to the food from the North as spicy, even though Sichuan, Hunan, and Chongqing are considered central China. To most people Southern Chinese food is just Cantonese food.

that's just not truth, every Chinese is aware if difference between sichuanese/hunanese and Cantonese cuisine

That isn't what I said at all. You are conflating two separate statements there.

> Very different foods.

This I agree with, just like the US has varied cuisine depending on locale.

> The north is a lot more spicy stuff. The south is more about sauces and freshness.

Citation needed, please.

>> The north is a lot more spicy stuff. The south is more about sauces and freshness.

> Citation needed, please.

Not really true; here is an anti-citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichuan_cuisine

Sichuan cuisine is renowned for having dishes/spices from many different places... which makes it not a good anti-example.

It is assuredly not northern Chinese cuisine. I think the point that is being made here is that your original statements about the distinguishing characteristics between northern and southern Chinese food are incorrect on any level.

Using a place which is intentionally pan-regional to make a statement about regions is not an anti-example. Also, I didn't make the original statement. And, no one said Sichuan was northern Chinese cuisine. So I'm a bit confused as to who and what you think you're responding to.

I cannot speak for the intent of the other person in this thread, but I was attempting to tie it back to your comment at the root of this thread, but based on your response it appears that the comments are intended to standalone. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Still, your comments about Chinese cuisine are strange.

> The north is a lot more spicy stuff. The south is more about sauces and freshness.-

This is wrong, where did you get this information from?

</strike>

> Using a place which is intentionally pan-regional...

How is Sichuan cuisine "pan-regional"? Can you elaborate, please?

I didn't say the first quote -- that's twice you've misattributed the same thing -- and the second is what Chinese people tell me about Sichuan cuisine, that it incorporates spices and dishes from many neighboring regions.

Eep, I'm sorry. I should learn to read better. Totally was not trying to put words in your mouth.

To your comment about Sichuan, I'm not sure I would be in the same camp as the people you've spoken with. Ultimately everyone shares culinary attributes to some degree, but it seems to be unique enough to have warranted being considered its own cuisine.

The people I talked to didn't say it wasn't unique and wasn't its own cuisine.

Citation?

>Without college I would probably be a racist

Quite a statement. If you don't mind me asking, do you see people who don't go to college as probably racist?

No not at all. I just mean that I had never been exposed to anyone who wasn't white before college. And while I didn't dislike them, I never even gave a second thought to making fun of people of other races. I suspect that had I not been exposed to other races, I would have turned those jokes into actual beliefs.

>I never even gave a second thought to making fun of people of other races.

You shouldn't make racist jokes because you shouldn't needlessly hurt or offend the people around you.

That isn't quite the same as being racist (although depending on the intention it could be). Racist means hating someone based on their ethnicity or skin color. It isn't quite the same.

>I suspect that had I not been exposed to other races, I would have turned those jokes into actual beliefs.

This is such a strange and cynical view. Are you sure you want to make the argument that you would have been a racist in America in 2018 had you continued to live in your neighborhood??

I know people like him, their perceived racism is as much fear from a lack of familiarity as it is anything - a broadly diverse society is important - it's specifically important for Americanism to flourish.