jack6e

I was going to say the same thing, but we can't both be right.

I think the two views of his tour are inextricably linked. Protecting Facebook's image protects Zuckerberg's image, because, as the author says, "Zuckerberg is Facebook, and his image is his company’s." Regardless of whether he runs, Facebook needs good PR to stay popular and profitable. But if he does run, Zuckerberg will need Facebook to be popular, and him by extension, to have a chance. To most of the population, Zuckerberg is still just a kid in a hoodie and his only relevance is that he heads up the dominant social media platform of the moment, so his political hopes hinge on keeping that platform dominant. No one is talking about Tom Anderson running for president.

This looks interesting and potentially really helpful! I have been keeping my eyes open for something along these lines. As the author, how do you see this project's relation to Conda? And if you see it working alongside of, rather than in place of, Conda, what support does it have for recognizing and using Conda envs?

> Just because people have accepted something doesn't mean they deem it "acceptable".

Actually, that is exactly, literally what it means. Perhaps you mean that just because we find something acceptable, we don't deem it moral, or optimal, or desirable. The distressing reality presented in the interview is that we accept non-benevolent, non-ideal options because they are good enough to be accepted, and not bad enough to be rejected. But accepting something, by definition, means you consider it accept-able, or, "able to be accepted."

Sorry, I think in editing I deleted my intermediate sentence. You are right, it measures under-representation, but the narrative and assumption is that under-representation in university is problematic, worrisome, an issue. I think that assumption is false, and assuming that under-representation is an issue that can be fixed, or should be fixed, relies on assuming that there is some cause that does not originate with the individual. If individuals simply do not choose to attend university, then that is not a problem that should be forcefully fixed. If instead individuals from each race equally desire and apply to university, and still under-representation exists, then measuring it is useful. But in that case measuring application to acceptance is more accurate.

The presentation of these statistics is misleading and reads like a common case of "find some numbers to support this great narrative I want to write." Comparing total college-age population with final enrollment assumes that all groups apply to these universities in equal proportion, and that all races/cultures hold the same assumptions about the value of a university education for prosperity/success/happiness. The narrative seems to suggest that university is the primary means to wealth and advancement, thus if blacks and Hispanics are under-represented, they are necessarily disproportionately under-privileged.

If the goal is to evaluate possible university-driven under-representation, an honest statistic would be comparing application rates to acceptance rates per race. Or if the objective is measuring social mobility, examining the percentage of college-age persons attending technical schools, working as skilled labor, earning a certain percentage above the poverty line (or a reasonable percentage of median household income), or attending university, would reveal differing career choices while also showing which percentage of each race falls outside of a normal path to upward mobility.

Maybe I am cynical, but I think white over-representation has more to do with economic disparity, which results in cultural disparity between rungs of the economic ladder, such that upper-middle class society (within which whites are over-represented) overvalues university as the de facto path to prosperity and success. But even among whites, there are still a lot of first-generation university students. This is not driven by race, but by socioeconomics - parents who worked blue collar jobs without an education, earned their way into middle/upper-middle class circles, which then inculcated either their children, them, or both with the expectation of university attendance. Measuring those realities, their causes and effects, is where real solutions to these disparities will be sought.

Interesting observations on the sad state of Korean society, but the UBI hook turns it into a poor piece. There is nothing unique or novel about suggesting communism as an "antidote" for capitalism. The author suggests the evils of Korean society are due to capitalism being carried to its logical extremes, without realizing that UBI is fundamentally a socialist idea, which if carried to its logical extremes, simply results in the same evils - having swapped the government for the marketplace.

> Universal Basic Income (UBI) is one policy proposal that would eliminate the dependence of people on jobs...

...and replace it with a dependence on the government.

Rather than receiving an education for "a humiliating life of poverty, unrespected work, parental dependence, and limited dating options," one could receive a UBI check for a humiliating life of poverty, no work, parental dependence, and limited dating options.

> Rather than an outdated industrial-education complex that breeds overly passive and obedient workers...

...Korea would have an outdated industrial-political complex that breeds overly passive and obedient workers.

> All the time wasted showing facetime for one’s boss and all the commoditized companies endlessly competing against each other in zero-sum games could become...

...time wasted showing facetime for one's party bosses and state-capitalized companies endlessly competing against each other in zero-sum games for government favor.