bdhe

Uber has ~ 34,000 corporate employees. What sorts of inferences do you want to make from an engineering blog post with the names of 4 employees?

IIM as in Indian Institute of Management?

Absolutely not.

Sundar's education is: IIT-Kharagpur Bachelors in Eng Stanford Masters in Eng Wharton MBA

Maybe you're thinking of the last one

I don't think you know what category error is. Or at least, back to my point, you're not communicating as though you do.

I think you're strawmanning my point - no one asks you to act like a philosopher 24/7, but this exchange shows you're very far away from that bar.

> The video footage doesn't show how disruptive he was being; but I find it reasonable that he was clapping in a way that the the person running the public comment meeting had specifically asked people not to do in the name of expediently getting to as many comments as possible.

You're suggesting that the bar arbitrarily set by a councilmember on what counts as sufficient disruption to hurt expediency* trumps what seems like just clapping and agreement -- one would argue is clearly protected speech per the 1st amendment and I'd argue squarely within the spirit of why we have public comments in the first place?

I think that's a pretty slippery slope and enables projecting power through process, not something we want from our elected officials.

*an aside - why is expediency the goal? if this is a contentious topic, schedule more time so the focus is on receiving public feedback!)

Because it simply isn't. Philosophy isn't about wordy refusals (ironically the same complaint you try to levy) but about reasoning, knowledge, and abstract ideas. None of which come through in your comment, nor can come through refusing to engage in communication.

I'm struggling to find a counter argument in your response. You say it is a deeply prejudiced argument? Why? You say blinders? What are those?

What is a philosophical statement?

One tendency I've noticed is that people well versed in philosophy can communicate well. Just anecdotally. Not something I am seeing here in this response.

Honestly there are so many levers we could pull off within Capitalism to both meaningfully improve the lives of people while keeping together all the things that are genuinely good about it (such as the central thesis of rewarding risk and innovation).

- better safety nets paid through higher taxes and closing down loopholes (such as buybacks)

- stronger regulatory enforcement to reduce the power of monopolies / monopsonies

- stricter rules around tax-payer investments / subsidies into companies (sure SpaceX gets to have billions to shore up our competitiveness but there must be a mechanism for the tax payer to have board representation)

etc. etc.

The list goes on. Honestly it doesn't take a lot (besides political will and escaping the capture of Citizens United) to move the needle so that the median income or bottom 10th percentile lifestyle meaningfully improves while we no longer have wealth horded to the level of having centibillionaires.

It does require a government that operates with much less corruption than we have, so it is more idealistic than not, but very easy to imagine.

What does this mean? I thought Meta has something like 80,000 employees. Meta had about 1,400 H-1B employee petitions last year. Even if we assume that number held for Meta's entire existence, that's less than 25,000 H-1B employees. Less than a third of Meta are presumably immigrants.

Have I got something wrong or is there this belief that Meta doesn't hire any Americans?

I think it is easy to argue that the Chinese govt exerts pressure in "unique ways" - see Jack Ma's 180 in attitude after house arrest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ma#During_tech_crackdown

Is there one CEO in the US or UK with a similar story?

There's a whole wikipedia article discussing how it is both a logical fallacy and how it is often used as a tool of propaganda.

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

Please don't engage in whataboutism. One should be able to criticize China's actions without calling into discussion actions of other nations.

Do you go about threads criticizing US govt actions drawing parallels to similar actions in other regimes like China or Russia?

What facts would you point to, to argue that the Democratic party is "owned by Israel" more than the Republican party?

Hamas support or Palestinian support?

> and it quickly grew beyond any reason

Why did it quickly grow?

> 100% of white western civilization

Do the republics in the Caucasus region (and Russia) count in this calculation or not?

> However, the situation has also been significantly escalated by often-violent obstructionists

Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)

If it is the latter, then isn't the blame to be placed squarely on the original enforcement philosophy?

Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.

Does anyone have a good understanding of the reasoning behind these targeted operations being in places one wouldn't typically associate with the average illegal/undocumented immigrant? I'd think of CA, TX, AZ, FL, and other border states as being the primary places one would start off with before heading inland.

If the premise is that folks crossed over the unprotected Southern border, Maine is basically about as far as one can get while still remaining in the contiguous 48.

> A cyberattack targeting an oncology journal has taken it offline that published a peer-reviewed study from Tufts and Brown University exploring links of COVID injections to newly diagnosed or rapidly worsened cancer shortly after COVID injections. Did this have anything to do with your cancer? It doesn't seem like this kind of question is allowed to be entertained either.

We had billions of COVID shots. Even if there was a weak correlation with 1% of the people going on to get rapidly worsening cancer we'd be seeing cancer spikes everywhere. Do we have anything remotely close to that in real life?

Why'd you call him Clott Adams?

I'm missing the well-reasoned argument with subtlety. It sounds like parent is saying that "X is a natural product of evolution and hardwired" so "X must be ok".

I don't see subtlety here. As others pointed, the story of human civilization is one long arc of going against our base animal instincts in order to build a society that benefits everyone.

I don't see a rebuttal to his point that you are okay with people getting put into secret prisons as long as you're not inconvenienced. Are you just complaining that you were called out?

I think most people come to HN assuming folks are discussing their viewpoints in good faith with both an honesty of thought and the willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints. You've shown neither.

> Also easy to forget how much negative sentiment, on the opposite political side, there was prior to the vaccine being approved. The NYT had an article on how it would take 10 years for the vaccine to be developed and approved!

I looked up that article. Nowhere does it indicate that papers like the NYT were opposed to speeding up the development, approval, and distribution of vaccines.

Are you implying that if it were Democrats in the white house we would've had protracted approval?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/opinion/coronavirus-vacci...

==

Vaccines often take 10 years to bring to market. We want a new vaccine as fast as possible, where each month matters.

The fact is that starting from the early stages of development, most vaccines fail. We cannot afford to fail, so we need to plan for success. To do that, we must think and invest as ambitiously as we can — and that means in a Covid vaccine advance market commitment.

What are the long lasting anatomical changes? Would love to learn more because my kids were bottle fed.

Let's also talk about the how of the enforcement not just the what.

Would you be saying the same thing if you HAD a valid Vietnamese tourist visa and was snatched off the road and detained for several hours without access to a lawyer in terrible conditions by unbadged masked "agents"?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawyer-us-born-citizen-detained-ic...

> We are basically paying them to get their degrees here.

If they are the best and brightest of the world and typically stay back and contribute significantly above the median employee to US industry or even start their own companies, why is it framed in such a negative way?

I think reasonable people will agree that Bitcoin's energy consumption had huge impacts on costs of power with very little to show for, at least for the average user.

What are ways in which we can incentivize investments and place societal guardrails so that something similar doesn't happen with AI data centers.

Do governments need to invest in nuclear power?

Scale up energy generation in other ways through renewables?

Insulate or subsidize the average non-corporate electricity consumer through something like rent control?

A lot of Trump's support comes from people wanting to and happy to blame immigrants (of all kinds) for legitimate grievances - such as unemployment, expensive healthcare, housing, and inflation. The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is blurred not only by Democrats but also the economic populists occupying Trump's base. This is aimed at them.

I think I need to just post the Sartre quote over and over again. The inability or disinterest of certain factions of the right in having a good faith argument is just genuinely frustrating.

It is a bit ironic to post this in a thread where someone who arguably wielded only words succumbed to someone wielding violence. From Sartre:

> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

I'm still confused. I don't think it says anywhere that drug companies couldn't show their vaccines were safe enough. I think it said that if we allow indiscriminate lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, WHILE longer-term trials are still pending, this disincentivizes production.

If you believe vaccines are a good thing, generally speaking, you want to incentivize production. You also make it sound like there are no remedies. I don't think that is the case at least from this sentence. Do you disagree?

> However, a plaintiff may file a civil court claim against vaccine companies after filing a claim in the VICP if they reject the vaccine court's decision.

Because it is incredibly apt. He and his campaigns and influence have worked very hard over the years to stop progress on gun reform, aimed at preventing the very kind of violent actions that he was unfortunately subject to today.

This doesn't condone violence but offers context as to how he would've assessed a similar situation if he weren't the target.

> Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws.

If a simplistic definition of political violence is targeted killings of political leaders, then this is trivially false. Look at Europe, Australia and other countries with comparable statistics to US and look at the number of events you'd classify as political violence. It is likely zero. The only person I can think of from recent memory is Shinzo Abe.

In the US alone, thanks to no gun control, we have attempts at Presidential candidates, and successful killings of state-level law makers, CEOs, and now, political influencers.