csa

> how are they required at all?

I’m going to take your comments at face value. I encourage you to find a good salesperson and shadow them for a day or two.

> why can't a company publish its products and services on its website and customers can take it or leave it?

Do you assume most people actually read product info? If they do, so you assume they understand it? The answer to both of those is a resounding “no” (especially in areas that change rapidly like tech and medicine), even if it doesn’t apply to you. For some potential customers this is due to lack of time, and for others it’s simply lack of ability.

A good sales person is finding and connecting their product or service with customers who will find value with their product or service. “Build a better mouse trap, and the world will beat a path to your door” has largely been shown to be untrue.

> why do we need commission-paid schmoozers in-between, who make multiples of what rank-and-file workers earn?

There is a lot to unpack here.

Commission-based pay can be debated, but I assure you that any system that yielded better results consistently would become the new standard fairly quickly. It is what it is.

The amount sales people earn is generally based on two things — their relative value to the company and the market for sales people. Losing one key salesperson to a competitor can mean the end of a lot of small businesses.

The “schmoozer” comment can simply be addressed by saying that some people are more likely to pay for a product or service from someone they know or like. This might be a rational criterion in some cases, irrational in others, but it’s very real.

> The workers create value, and are paid the least.

Workers do create some value for sure. Matchmaking the customer to the product or service also has value. You may not personally believe that, but the market seems to.

The relative amounts of pay are largely market driven, imho.

I completely agree with your comment about Japan killing every generation since the bubble popped. It has been wild to witness.

The subtle but profound ways those generations have experienced being essentially abandoned by the government and “Japan Inc” will have a lasting impact on Japan for many decades to come.

There are some leaders who actually grasp the problem and actually have decent ideas for solutions, but the will and capacity to execute those ideas just isn’t there.

> I really enjoyed Fair Play. While we didn't really prescribe to playing the game rigorously or really start keeping track of cards, it was a great read for our relationship and really made both of us look at how we lived our lives and acted in our relationship.

This is probably the best (and maybe the only) way that this is a good game. As soon as it turns into score keeping, the relationship will almost certainly go sideways.

Maybe some relationships should go sideways, but that can be addressed in a different way.

Two points of unsolicited advice:

1. You may want to work on your reading comprehension skills.

2. You would probably benefit from being more curious and less certain.

> If one teacher is an outlier that uses it badly then sure, the teacher is to blame and be judged. But if a collective is using it badly, then perhaps the capability of the collective should have been evaluated before handing the tool to them.

You won’t get any argument from me that most teachers are poorly trained. Money can largely buy someone out of that trap.

That said, just forbidding a tool that is critical in modern life just because some/many people are bad at using it does not strike me as a particularly constructive solution to the problem.

> I don't have an answer - it is bad to withhold a tool from the hands of people who will use it badly. But the overall outcome has to also count.

My “solution” to this is not a popular one. Lower expectations for public mass education.

Over the last 120 years, we have taken a curriculum that was targeted at elites and forced it onto almost everyone.

High quality education should be available and cheap or free to everyone, but I really don’t think it should be mandatory.

If we stopped compulsory education at 8th grade and replaced most high schools with some sort of other skill development program or work/study program, the expectations and outcomes would probably be better aligned.

Large parts of the tertiary education system would be gutted, but maybe that’s a good thing.

> Sales

Yes, many sales people or even whole sales teams are effectively dead weight, but a highly-skilled sales team is a godsend both to the company and the economy.

We should all be wishing for more effective sales teams — the world would be a better place.

Most people have never experienced a good sales team, so I’m guessing this sounds like total fiction.

> Lots and lots of middle management and HR jobs (off the top of my head) are absolutely 0 value add and definitely just leech off of actual labor.

That’s a very engineer type of take.

Both middle management and HR serve roles that are believed to be useful to someone (maybe not you).

Often it is some form of protection by serving as a fall guy or complying with regulations, but it can be other things (e.g., increasing headcount/budget to gain power, etc.).

> So you gave up when it got hard? That’s kind of what I read out of that.

That’s a very uncharitable reading.

I have made my mark in the world by exploiting the Achilles’ heels of “authority figures” (which is usually just some form of a lack of empathy). I have caused a few to fall, I’ve made others reform, and I’m just an annoyance to many others. I have trained others to do the same.

That said, I could get whacked out of existence figuratively or literally if I crossed the wrong person or group.

There are others like me, but (as I mentioned before) we aren’t always easy to find.

I know the above may seem grandiose, but I’ve had a chip on my shoulder about these “authority figures” since I was a kid. I’ve done something about it, but I also didn’t choose to bang my head against a wall and call it progress.

> When the CEOs of these companies are saying that we will risk extinction and jobs will be decimated, why do you even need a "foreign agent"?

Three claims of propagandists with agendas.

While I do think AI will be disruptive like other tech advances, I think the manner and extent to which it could cause trouble is rarely discussed in a way that will be looked back on as resembling what actually ends up happening.

> However, I would fear that the issue with home-schooling would manifest: that the rarified atmosphere would render them incapable of engaging or coping with the brutal reality of binary-minded Authority figures and hierarchical social constructs in their work and life in the 'real world'.

Having been to a school like that, I agree with you. I had to learn those lessons quickly.

I largely opted out of being in the middle of that world, but I am still adjacent to it due to its ubiquitousness.

> Then I think you probably learned the wrong lessons.

> The lesson you should have learned would be that we should tear down the "brutal reality of binary-minded Authority figures and hierarchical social constructs." We only tolerate these things as "normal" because people go through their lives not actively trying to tear them down and break them.

I was a product of an environment like that (magnet school with a lot of unstructured time and good access to resources), and it didn’t take me very long to run into the Binary Authoritarian Figures’ version of “you and what army?”, and they were largely correct.

There are ways to undermine parts of the establishment, sometimes even at scale, but the process is not always obvious or easy to access.

> but watching other kids get a leg up because their parents continue to jump in and save them

Can you give us an example to what his looks like in your context (not necessarily you and your kids)?

> The same was said for laptops and tablets. Now there is a push to remove them from the curriculum. Having them meant the students didn't retain anything because they were distracting. I feel using AI in place of pedagogy will have similar results

Laptops, tablets, and AI are just tools. If the folks wielding these tools (or ostensibly teaching others to wield these tools) are not using a tool effectively, then we shouldn’t be surprised when the outcomes are unimpressive.

Simple example — put a hammer in the hands of a skilled builder, and you can get a deck or a house frame. Put the same hammer in my hands, and you will get nothing more than bent nails and sore thumbs.

All that said, just like I feel confident that I could learn how to use a hammer well if I took the time to learn and practice, I think students and teachers can learn to use their tools (laptops, tablets, AI, etc.) well if they take the time to learn and practice (ideally with some good scaffolding).

Most doctors make good money, but most who are good doctors could make much more.

Simple example pitch that many general practitioners might consider using (based on local laws, of course):

“Insurance covers C, Y, and Z. I can offer these additional services for A, B, and C that are not covered by insurance.”

Where I live, you get a lot of this via “concierge doctors”, but that system can go far beyond basic concierge service, and people are willing to pay for top quality care.

> What does it mean in this context to be more intelligent and shrewd than the existing owners?

Streamlining everything. Sometimes this is done in a bad faith way, but it’s often not difficult to do it in a good faith way.

Some simple examples:

- right-sizing staff (can be reducing, increasing, or changing roles)

- improving marketing (e.g., simple things like customer reactivation, packaging the product/service better, or just plain, ol’ getting the word out better via stuff like before/after pics or success stories)

- improving operations (e.g., better organization, better processes, better communication, better training, better logistics, etc.)

> Delivering better profit margins?

Improved profit margins are a byproduct of the things listed above.

> Have you ever in your life met someone this sadistic?

Yes, I have. In the US. Some were active military personnel at the time.

Some folks are just warped, but some folks change a lot after they have experienced war.

> The game is almost entirely revolving around maximizing your actions per minute.

Maybe for top tier play, but apm wasn’t really needed for regular play.

Just to debunk this myth, it used to be possible to get to diamond with 80-100 apm (which is very easy to achieve), efficient builds, fundamental rush defense, and a-move.

Not sure about now, but it was doable for many years.

I hope you realize that your comments are those of a “doom and gloom” person. It’s a fairly extreme take on things that makes some pretty wild assumptions about humanity that don’t really seem to hold (e.g., assuming a complete lack of adaptability, while we seem to be actually quite adaptable).

It’s not a credible take.

> You can't optimize away all the daydreams and hope and expect society

Agree. I think only dysfunctional weirdos actually think that’s what AI will do.

> to look anything like our current society

Who says our current society is at its apex? I don’t think it is. I think we have a ton of upside left to explore.

If our society looks like it is now 10-20 years from now, I will feel like we will have failed miserably. I am willing to bet that it will be much better.

> Even if we just have AI that can do every job that can be remote that would be hugely disruptive.

This will not happen in my lifetime.

It may do some. It may even do a lot. It will certainly augment close to 100% the remote jobs.

AI will never be able to “do every job that is remote”.

> I'm confused why americans don't do literally anything more than vote

That has been enough for a couple of centuries, and it still may be the path. Sadly, skewed voter participation rates mean that even voting isn’t necessarily sufficient to have a government that more accurately represents the electorate.

> read the New York Times

Most people don’t do this, even liberals. The NYT has lost its magic.

> and show up to glorified block parties.

Fair, but maybe that’s the right amount of protest by American standards.

> Where is the rioting over NSPM-7?

Almost no one knows what it is. If they did, many of them would support it.

> Where are the assassinations?

Well, tried and missed. There are also probably credible failed attempts that have not been publicly announced.

> Where's the fucking self respect?

No shortage of that.

> Of course capital is going to treat americans like the doormat they are.

Sure. That’s capital.

> But yes, continue to shove your head up your ass because that's more comforting than realizing that despite all the propaganda, liberals & social democrats learned absolutely nothing from the Weimar Republic

Hmmm… that’s not really constructive or accurate.

IMHO, liberals have really dropped the ball in terms of presidential candidates since Obama. They also dropped the ball by leaning hard into DEI and extremely lax immigration enforcement — two policies that are not widely supported as implemented.

A consequence of those decisions is that voters in swing states had to choose between the lesser of two evils, and it wasn’t necessarily clear to those voters at the time which one would be worse.

There are some folks, Buttigieg being one, who are talking the right talk. It really just boils down to whether the democrats can be unified in promoting universal policies that help everyone (rather than niche groups) and vote accordingly.

“Liberals” in the US can be somewhat snowflaky, so I’m not sure how likely that is to happen. That said, the ham-fisted policies of the current administration may unite them. Time will tell.

> Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test scores and coursework.

Please don’t spread propaganda.

I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives.

A generous interpretation supporting your thesis is that AA spots took away spots from very marginal asian and white students. Marginal asian and white admits even at Harvard are usually not terribly impressive, such that I’m not sure that this trade is a loss for the school or the student body.

An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”).

People act like so many deserving asians and/or whites were denied spots due to AA, when the reality is that the folks who theoretically “lost” a spot were already so marginal that admission was a bit of a crapshoot anyway. They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality.

> Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools.

Yeah. We are talking about different types of schools.

For one, Cal and UCLA both admit a lot of students. It’s just not as competitive. Additionally, it’s fairly easy for a decent grinder student to go to a feeder JuCo and transfer to either of these schools (which would be a fine outcome for the “ESL immigrant parents” you gave as an example).

Second, while Cal and UCLA are top-tier public schools (along with schools like UMich, UVa, and UTexas), I don’t consider them elite in terms of undergrad programs [1]. Any resident of California who gets into Stanford or an Ivy would be able to get into either of those (excepting anomalies like unusually high departmental requirements at some UC schools like Cal).

So sure, if the goal (esp. for California residents) is to get into a UC school, going the grinder route is fine — overkill in most cases, but fine. This will be less than ideal if they are also considering elite schools like Stanford or Ivies.

[1] What makes an undergrad program elite? The short answer is drive and the ability to get things done.

If you take the top 1000 admits from Stanford and compare them to the top 1000 admits at Cal, you may not see much difference in terms of raw intellect — plenty of super smart people in both groups. But the Stanford students will be more ambitious, they will push each other much harder (and in most cases learn more), and they will achieve more than the Cal students. Note that this isn’t a knock on Cal students — it’s just a different way of approaching school and life that is quite apparent when you interact with enough folks from each group.

Stanford, an elite school, can and does select for these traits. Cal just can’t be as picky due to the large number of admits and certain state policies.

> The catch is that it is harder to brute force being truly exceptional in one thing. That often requires talent and predisposition.

That’s true for sports, music, and academics, but I think “grinding” exceptional leadership can be a thing. It’s very learnable, and effort often times makes the difference.

Some simple examples I’ve seen in various forms:

- starting a meaningful business or non-profit

- starting a meaningful arts or sports experience (literary magazine, regional film festival, regional sports event/tournament, etc.)

- many/most substantial Eagle Scout projects (not all are substantial enough)

The heuristic I tell people to use is this — the reader of the application will go “no kidding… I’d really like to talk to this person and learn more about this” (aka “have a beer with them” type of sentiment)

> Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents.

See above… grind at the right thing. Full-time grinding academics is a fools errand unless the applicant can demonstrate their competence at a regional level, if not national or international level.

Not only that, but there are specific JuCos that specifically feed into these schools with an incredibly high acceptance rate.

> Anyone who lives in a neighborhood with a high proportion of kids making it to the Ivy league and other top schools knows exactly what this guy is talking about.

The person whose view you endorse supports what many parents believe. I’ve seen how the sausage is made, and he has it (mostly) wrong.

Many people seem to think that being more above average is the key to elite school admissions. It helps, and it’s directionally correct (one needs to show academic competence), but the key is to be truly exceptional in something.

Five extracurriculars is almost the same as one or even none if there was no demonstration of exceptional performance or leadership.

Taking the max load of AP classes versus just a few is not as helpful as people seem to think. Using one’s time to do something unique and/or exceptional would be time much better spent.

I beat this drum as often as I can here and elsewhere, but the upper middle class folks in that particular rat race don’t seem interested in hearing what I’m saying.

> Once you cross a certain threshold, it's luck of the draw if you're selected.

For most schools, it’s the opposite.

For folks qualified to get in, they will be selected. For folks at the marginal threshold, it’s luck of the draw.

> Clearly the entire thing is broken.

I agree with your sentiment, but for opposite reason. We need to scale down the number of people at R1 schools and develop a more robust system of technical and trade schools (imho).

The spreadsheet types have taken over the universities from the professors (it started decades ago), so I don’t think that this change will happen unless and until the current system implodes.

> Mary Sue'ing normies

Thank you for this gift. This combo has entered my lexicon.

> So, assuming all 3 kids go to a $100K/year type school, and we pay cash, that is $12 MILLION dollars over the next decade I will be paying

You forgot a decimal there.

If you want to fund your kids’ elite education and you can’t front the cash, you can take out the loan or agree to pay a loan they take.

Plus, your $300k bonus (maybe $150k after taxes) will go a long way towards financing this obligation.

> can anyone here think of some better ways where we could decouple the education process from the work process?

The excessive education requirements for jobs came about mainly to provide easy legal ways to cull a large pool of applicants. This credentialism trend has grown far beyond anything that is healthy.

One possible and feasible solution is to encourage (via funding and guidance) more coop and internship programs and partnerships. This is especially true for local junior colleges, but is also useful for 4-year schools.

That doesn’t really decouple education and work, but it would be something that could move the needle from the local level to the national level.

If you want to decouple education and work, I will humbly suggest that the system already exists. It’s people using their personal networks. Many people seem to find this to be incredibly unfair (however one defines unfair), but it’s an absolute cheat code / life hack for decoupling education and work.

Simple example:

I graduated from a prestigious school (one that is known for feeding Wall Street) a year and change after a stock market collapse. Only half of the graduates from the previous year had jobs in their chosen career fields. My year was worse.

When we saw who got Wall Street jobs, it was folks in the top 10% of the class, and about the same number randomly scattered amongst the rest. Some of these folks were very low ranked, and they were known for aggressively taking advantage of the “gentleman’s C” system. What was the common thread of all of the non-top 10%? It was almost always a personal connection, often a close one like a parent, being in a position of power at the employer.

None of this was or is obvious in boom times, but in times of distress we were able to see who was swimming naked in terms of connections/nepotism.

Try HN “classic” mode:

https://news.ycombinator.com/classic

Not completely free of AI, but it’s probably more of what you are looking for.

> AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught

Given how much time I spend teaching people how to use AI effectively, I humbly disagree.

AI slop is not using AI effectively.

> like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage

… especially adults

> so why should children need such a thing?

So that the scope of merits and demerits of the tool are explicit from the start, and this understanding can evolve along with the tool.