Pils

Which is to say, fair cop. HYP+MS produce too many consultants, finance bros and tech PMs is not exactly a unique POV. What is interesting to me is that Palladium has seemed to have cornered the market on "Student/new grad disillusioned with <elite institution>" articles[2].

Apsec112, is there a reason you decided to post this older blogpost rather than the more recent publication?

[0]https://palladiummag.com/2020/07/27/harvard-creates-managers...

[1]https://splinternews.com/leaked-emails-show-how-white-nation...

[2]honestly too many to list: https://palladiummag.com/2019/08/05/the-real-problem-at-yale..., https://palladiummag.com/2019/01/07/western-academias-activi..., https://palladiummag.com/2020/06/18/the-new-managerial-class...

> But isn’t concealing documents based on footnotes in books an attempt to lock the barn door after the horses have bolted?

> “I gave you an example that this needn’t be the case. If someone writes that the horse is black, if the horse isn’t outside the barn, you can’t prove that it’s really black.”

For additional context, this is with regards to the scholarship of Benny Morris[0]. Plenty of liberal democracies use and abuse the concept of state secrets, but to abuse it in such a petty and transparent way feels...counterproductive?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

>Overall, I’m pretty impressed by this article. It’s the sort of thing I could see myself aspiring to write. It spends ample time presenting SSC in its own terms, touches on enough of the major touchstones and obscurities of the blog to indicate a serious examination of it, and is precise and restricted in its criticisms. I appreciated in particular the attention it paid to the specific quirks of rationalist subculture rather than trying to lump it in as part of something it isn’t, and the way it (accurately) called out the people who were looking more for a war with the media and were willing rovers use Scott as a convenient casus belli.[0]

[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/ho6g2b/slat...

I fundamentally believe we are approaching this incident from fundamentally different perspectives. I saw Taylor's original tweet as a form of "correcting the record" in response to Korey's obvious spin on the whole thing, rather than trying to open a debate on media-tech relations (which is what it became ultimately due to Balaji's derailment). It's unfortunate that Taylor's tweet contained incorrect information on Korey's current job status, but that appeared to be a minor issue to me, but in other contexts could be construed as "misleading". You seem to be of the perspective that this incident is a symptom of a larger, systemic issue in journalism, an issue I have a lot of sympathy towards, so by all means go off.

If you read the original Away article, Korey clearly crossed multiple lines and was creating a toxic work environment. As a tech worker, I think its right and good for people covering tech to "call out" this sort of revisionist history.

I am curious by what you mean by "well, that's the opposite of the case here." What is in your opinion the opposite of White Nationalism on the radical spectrum?

That being said, in many ways companies/organizations are simply biased samples of the cultural milieu, so I'm not sure there is an easy company-level policy for changing this. Given the Banjo/Clearview.ai KKK/alt-right stuff, the fear of radicalized tech employees is definitely a matter of real concern, but it's definitely a hard problem.

>The benefits of diversity is the Left’s pseudoscience...I want climate deniers and diversity sycophants alike purged from the scientific apparatus.[1]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19912265

This is a true statement.

>A better approach may be to offer a resource page that shows every news article on the topic, with guidelines on political leaning

...seems to just introduce another level of bias. Every "media bias" website touts "objective analysis" while in the FAQ they admit to relying on a panel that they assure you is 100% objective. How do you guarantee that these ratings are not "flawed as it requires human judgment, which is hobbled by people's biases and potential lack of topical expertise"? See: allsides.com[1] and Media Bias Fact Check [2].

Looking at your employee page, you seem to have exactly zero employees with any significant background in journalism. What "topical expertise" does Factual provide that a layperson doesn't have? How do you minimize human judgement?

This reads to me as "You shouldn't use Facebook because you're the product, not the customer, which leads to bad incentive alignment. Use Twitter instead."

[1] https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-method... [2] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

If you are going to continue to attack a complete straw man of my arguments, I’m not sure how productive continuing this chain will be.

Your entire argument is predicated on 1) Damien, at almost 18 years of age, having absolutely no culpability for his actions, and 2) that he has shown genuine remorse for his actions, despite receiving essentially no punishment for a premeditated murder attempt and having shown no signs of remorse until he was asked to comment on the story. In other words, an entirely speculative argument that relies on your own personal character projections.

I would encourage you to extend the same level of generosity and charitableness you seem to show Damien Patton to the next person who challenges your worldview.

> "the pursuit of happiness" (one of the three inalienable rights upon which my country was founded)

inalienable rights are, by definition, forfeitable in the cases where one's actions violate another person's or group's inalienable rights. Shooting up a synagogue qualifies as one such action.

> simply because they were victims of white supremacist grooming/brainwashing.

"These weren't the kind of men you send to jail... You don't make the punishment fit the crime; you make the punishment fit the criminal."[1] Once again, let me state that I find it incredible that many people such as yourself believe that the CEO of a multimillion dollar company, who participated in a violent hate crime and avoided the consequences of his actions due to a sympathetic court and typo, is the victim in this whole affair.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Vincent_Chin

Since you evoked concentration camps, I'd be remissed if I didn't point out that the vast majority of Nazi bureaucrats, including many directly involved in the administration of concentration camps, faced essentially no punishment and quickly re-entered the postwar workforce. No one involved in the illegal incarceration of Japanese Americans during WWII was ever sent to prison.

I disagree with your second paragraph entirely. I do not want to live in a society where CEOs of multimillion dollar companies have indiscriminately shot up places of worship when they were 17 years old.

Look, the man participated in a drive-by shooting on a synagogue when he was a legal adult. It's disgusting that people on this site are defending a literal terrorist because "he's one of our own."

> American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

> When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

> The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

Importantly, however:

> In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

7 people got infected in Wisconsin due to voting: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/04/.... I am glad your experiences in CA/WA were positive, but I would suggest looking into the history of "voting is a state issue."

I mean, isn't that the definition of rights? If the government can take away fundamental rights via executive power, then it is called having a penal system. We all live in a state of exception, freedom is always conditioned, during a pandemic or otherwise. There is no principled libertarian stance that is violated now but not status quo ante.

> Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa, they can’t even count. No they can’t. They can’t count their votes.

> One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

Here is what you extracted from the quote: - "What Trump actually said is that his opponents suggestion that he doesn't do enough to counter the epidemic is the next hoax"

But you condition this statement on a novel understanding of the word "hoax"

"This is somewhat unusual application of word "hoax", as "hoax" usually refers to false statement of fact, and whether Trump is doing a good job is not a fact but an opinion, which you can disagree with but it can't be "hoax"."

Of course, you spotted right away that he was "sacrificing precision for expressiveness."

To steelman the other side: given the unreliability of natural language, there is a tendency to construct your own interpretation and then work backwards, which I think you did there. in the quotation, he uses "hoax" to describe another event:

>They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation.

versus

> And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

Given the structural similarity and proximity of these two quotes, it seems clear what Trump is trying to do is to compare to these two instances and the similarity of the response from the Dems. In both, he very clearly says that his conversation with the Ukrainian President and the Coronavirus situation are both similarly germane. At the very least, it should be beyond question that Trump is downplaying the severity of the coronavirus in the last few sentences. It follows that the "hoax" is referring to the opposition party making a mountain out of molehill.

But I digress. The most important thing is that you have strong opinions on tribal politics and an apparent distrust of media. Which is fine and good! But it is also important to recognize that your interpretation could be different from someone else's, and that doesn't mean that they lied "because they hate Trump and think it's ok to sacrifice the truth for the noble goal of getting rid of Trump, somehow thinking when they do it, as opposed to Trump doing it, it's ok". You cannot assume all statements contrary to your own are made in bad faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

[1]https://splinternews.com/leaked-emails-show-how-white-nation...

It's confusing to me that we see Bill Gates as a particularly exceptional member of the philanthropic class outside of his extreme wealth. Perhaps the increasing popularity of "Effective Altruism"/Peter Singer's ideas, which align fairly well with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's work. Perhaps it was his ability to avoid scandal.

>To extend previous work, in addition to audio analysis features, we consider song duration and mine an additional artist past-performance feature. Artist past-performance for a given song represents how many prior Billboard hits the artist has released before that track’s release date

emphasis mine.

I wonder how accurate a model using this feature alone would be.