heterodoxxed

The insane height of these building is far beyond the argument for vertical density, though.

The two are so incredibly intertwined given our history that it's hard to separate them. While I think talking about race without talking about class is a huge mistake, it's also a mistake to think that class in a way that doesn't take race into consideration.

For instance, AAVE is seen as "low class" despite there being plenty of speakers of it who are not lower class at all.

The kind of racial reductionism we've seen come from (often well-to-do) liberal circles that presents being white (or not Black) no matter the class background as a walk in the park is a dead end of course, but we have to be careful to recognize that there are a number of structural racial problems that don't always have a targeted class character (unless you get to the very upper echelons of wealth).

That said, the popular discourse in America is woefully under-prepared to understand class divisions between and within racial groups. That lack of nuanced discussion is why we end up favoring an understanding that is fully rooted in upper-middle-class experiences and study.

A Black writer who grew up poor, went to a city college and still lives in their neighborhood will never get an op-ed position at the New York Times no matter how good of a writer they are, so their experience gets completely lost in the mainstream, despite being so important to understanding class and race in America.

I'm not selling revolutionary marxism here, but an informed view of history that doesn't fall into such ideological chasms.

Think about why Stalin is presented as a terrible leader and Churchill as a great one.

Aside from the fact that mismanagement is not unique to communism, there have been many famines under capitalism.

I'm not a maoist, so I'm not about to defend his ineptitude, but it seems intellectually lazy to point to these problems as unique. In the 18th, 19th and 20th century, depending on what level of development a country was in, these problems were widespread across all ideologies.

That's ahistorical considering almost all deaths attributed to communism were a result of industrialization, a process which was just as deadly under capitalism.

The only difference as a result of ideology was the timeframe. The USSR was forced to rapidly industrialize due to global pressure from foreign militaries and famines in China were exceedingly common long before communism.

History is not as simple as you're making it out to be.

I don't know if you want to open the can of worms that is "accidental deaths from mismanaged resource distribution" under capitalism.

Global deaths from hunger result in one great leap forward every 5 years.

Not to the bodies in the graves there isn't.

The concept of altruism does not require it to be "pure" or entirely selfless. Altruism can have benefits but those benefits can exist outside of economy and into the realm of the personal, spiritual, social, etc.

In other words, that doesn't disprove altruism so much as it proves that economic self-interest is not our only motivator.

Is that the only obvious solution? Wouldn't better public transportation (which benefits from economies of scale unlike private automobiles) be equally if not more obvious? Especially since it has a much more proven track record.

Dogecoin?

| a set HTML/CSS specs that can be implemented fairly easily

That could then be heavily optimized and used for cross-platform apps instead of the bloated, kitchen sink approach of Electron.

| Many in Silicon Valley advocate for things like basic income and socialized medicine.

UBI is not socialist, it has roots in Austrian economics. Most socialists are opposed to it, although some might accept it as a short-term compromise. Like I said, socialism is nationalization, collectivization or unionization. It is not the negative income tax proposed by Hayek which maintains market relations and alienation of labor.

As for universal healthcare/single payer, can you show me people representing Silicon Valley that support Medicare For All? Not just employees, not the proles, but actual power brokers?

A ton of leftist comedians joined to crack jokes about right-wing people on there and they were almost all immediately banned.

| Silicon Valley is an odd mixture of socialist ideals

There is literally nothing socialist about Silicon Valley. Government spending is not socialism and never has been.

If Silicon Valley supported nationalization, collectivization or unionization, you would have a case. But they don't, in fact they're pretty obviously against all of them.

| There are important escape hatches that TS gives that make it unreliable

This is one way to mitigate those escape hatches:

https://github.com/cyrilletuzi/typescript-strictly-typed

But in my experience, you had better be starting a new project. They aren't joking when they say laying it on an existing codebase is a nightmare.

> Something in their upbringing gave them this immense sense of worth

Is there an abundance of this in Japanese culture that I wasn't aware of?

It's incumbent on them to prove that. So far, there is little evidence that they are backed by anywhere near the dollars they claim.

Maybe HN should get in the 20th century and allow users to delete their comments.

⠀

⠀

⠀

⠀

⠀

MedMen stores already look like Apple Stores, so...

It was a coup. I don't particularly like Morales (like Áñez even less though) and it was absolutely a coup.

I don't understand why software architect isn't a position in any of the new startup culture tech businesses. The advantage of having an older, very wise and very experienced engineer whose job it is to document, plan and understand all the moving parts of your project would have been invaluable instead of expecting all the engineers who are stressed about hitting deadlines and chasing down memory leaks to do that work on top of their daily requirements.

I just explained why and it's still weird to you? You should ask yourself why so many democratically elected left-wing leaders find themselves murdered or exiled by the CIA.

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

Northern European/Scandinavian countries got a pass for things that got Latin Americans slaughtered. I'll give you as many guesses as you need to figure out why.

Hint: resources or hegemony

| Also why would only the dictators survive?

Because they ruthlessly crush their political enemies and live in a state of constant paranoia?

Not for lack of trying.

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

Like I said below, when the largest empire the world has ever seen makes it a policy to destroy any socialist leader (even the mildest of social democrats) that threaten their resources or hegemony, only the iron-fisted strongmen survive. What people cite as failures are a result of the intense external pressure which favors strongmen because democratic socialist movements get massacred.

| This would also require the CIA to have the foresight to know beforehand which leaders will turn out to be incompetent.

First, as I said before, when the CIA targets socialist leaders, only the strongmen survive. It's my belief that strongmen are not great leaders, they're just the best at not getting killed. This is why people associate "socialist" with "authoritarian", because the crunchy, hippy Bernie Sanders types get shot and their supporters get thrown from helicopters.

Second, killing socialist leaders isn't the only thing the CIA does. Look up any CIA counter-revolution manual and part of their cointel is to do as much as possible to destabilize the politics and economy of the country. Any socialist leader (or even just mildly social democratic leader) has to contend with this in a way that a capitalist leader doesn't. Even under these circumstances, we still have relative success stories like Cuba, which while not great from a first world perspective is a much better place to be an average citizen than Haiti or Dominican Republic. Or Bolivia, which got coup'd but popular support was able to oust Añez and whose economic reforms have increased GDP per Capita by 50%.

You can't state something as definitive as "socialism doesn't work" when history includes the greatest empire the world has ever known doing everything in its power to crush it.