Hacker News Reader

Comment by redwood | Hacker News Reader

Worlds apart these two men Vannevar Bush and Michael Kratsios. My how far we've fallen.

"Bush joined the Department of Electrical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1919, and founded the company that became Raytheon in 1922. Bush became vice president of MIT and dean of the MIT School of Engineering in 1932, and president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1938"

"Kratsios graduated from Princeton University with a bachelor's degree in political science in 2008. After graduating from Princeton, he worked as an analyst at Barclays Capital and the Lyford Group International. Kratsios served as the chief financial officer of Peter Thiel's Clarium Capital. He later became a principal at Thiel Capital and served as Thiel's chief of staff. "

View on HN

> Kratsios graduated from Princeton University with a bachelor's degree in political science in 2008. After graduating from Princeton, he worked as an analyst at Barclays. . .

Okay, in all seriousness, what would a person with this background know about the natural sciences? He's had no professional or academic exposure to them. It's a bit weird that a complete non-scientist can loftily decree, with a perfectly straight face, precisely how science ought to be "overhauled". (By funneling money to AI companies and "competing with China," no less.)

MBAs declaring how fields they know nothing about should operate is our general model of business since the 1980s or so.

I don’t think it has worked well, but this is continuing the trend rather than a deviation.

> MBAs declaring how fields they know nothing about should operate is our general model of business since the 1980s or so.

Not wrong, but even scientists can get out of their depth at times:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

* ~2 weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49166918

There's a definite feeling that things are coming to a head on this one; it feels unsustainable in a way it hasn't before. People tire of the society-wide rot brought on by boundless greed whose benefits ordinary people will never reap, and whose consequences they will bear alone.

In the Trump administration, any traditional qualifications for a job are disqualifiers. All that matters is willing to do what you're told and never question anything, publically or in private.

What does RFK Jr. know about medicine? Why do we have news anchors in cabinet positions? Same answer.

The transition from leadership to management has marked the decay of many a civilization or organization.

We need subject experts, not McKinsey consultants.

As a rule, people should be judged on content of their character. Their words and the actions behind them.

That said, it's a really safe bet that anybody serving in the current administration is the wrong person for the job and their only "qualifications" for that role are pledging personal loyalty to Trump (the man, not the office), and that they are a skilled grifter and manipulator.

Not to get all philosophical, but what does "content of character" mean apart from actions and words? If anything I'd say content of character is something we must infer from actions and words (and yes, actions are far more important than words, though in a public-facing position, communication arguably becomes a form of action).

> what does "content of character" mean

Interesting question.

I think the intent when talking about “character” is to look for traits that unifiy observations of words and actions.

Sorry for the extra verbiage that defiled my comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com