techorange

If I’m given exciting work to do, and management reduces beurocracies and other blockers, I’ll work 60, 70, 80 hour weeks. If my job is as a glorified paper pusher because of bad procrssses/management I won’t.

It’s a leaders job to motivate people to work those hours, and create an environment where it is worthwhile, to just say “work more” sounds like he thinks management doesn’t have a role to play.

In fact almost definition ally, if you’re people aren’t working enough, that’s a management failure. So who is he telling?

The past three years we have been with propaganda from both sides of this conflict. It’s a war. To point to one side and say that’s the side that’s lying is just more propaganda, it’s not a serious breakdown.

Can you explain more about being bamboozled? Bamboozled about what? Bush tried to convince us that Iraq was creating WMD’s when they weren’t, but left and right were pretty united at the time as a reaction to 9/11, like it wasn’t just the right that was bamboozled, it was bipartisan.

Left and right were pretty united in defense of Ukraine until Trump came along, but what’s the lie they were trying to convince us of. That Russia started the war when really Ukraine did?

Trump said that the other day, but if he really believes it, why doesn’t he seem to stand behind it?

I haven’t heard a clear confident description of what the lie is???

So this is true, and if I piece apart what you’re saying, it’s that you think that liberal propaganda has turned people away from MAGA, convincing liberals of Trump’s inherent malevolence.

But I have a different theory. I think that in this case, the propagandists are trying to convince the other of their own inherent malevolence.

Not to say liberal media doesn’t try to do this, but let’s be honest? Trump is a world’s better marketer than the folks at MSNBC.

And I think he thinks it is useful to be so extreme that it also creates that divisiveness. Like as objectively as I try to look at Trump, I think he intentionally obfuscates his intentions to increase divisiveness.

What a great observation, maybe he can convince someone in Government to do something about it.

I'm sure this is a very narrow use-case, but I've kinda wanted CI/CD for generating Ableton Live Albums

It's funny, I mean I don't know the exact divide between MAGA and trad Republicans, but the trad Republicans I know have been the ones to turn pro-Russia. There definitely seems to be a split in /r/conservative.

Not if he puts boots on the ground. Having a relative die in a foreign war focuses people’s attention real fast. They may blame Biden somehow but

Who are you telling, but they're not playing to us.

This is a bit flippant, but maybe hacker/startup culture just moved from being applied to tech to being applied to politics? It seems like the technofeudalism promoted by some could apply a similar ethos.

I don't think that we're this far gone yet, but is there a chance the US sides with Putin in this case? I think it would be risky, and I don't _think_ Trump's base would go for it, but it does feel like the long term goal is to try to sanitize the idea of a shift in the geopolitical order to ally America with Russia instead of with Europe.

Yeah, I watched as much of the video as I could, and I can totally see this playing well with all the conservatives I know. JD Vance and Trump come off as strong, and Zelensky comes off as weak.

Unfortunately I think it plays well for their audience, makes Trump and Vance look strong, and makes Zelenksy look week.

I'm curious which way this will go since this is opinion is split in the current administration. If I had to guess, I'm guessing big tech will win, and h-1b will be protected/maximized.

Right, but what you are forgetting is, that in exchange for all the efficiency provided by a central government agency, millionaires with only 2 yachts will be able to leverage this private contract into enough money to buy a third yacht.

Areas with dense populations will be financially incentivized to generate their own storm warnings, and we'll save money on sparsely populated areas, so probably rather than spending money equally on tornadoes and hurricanes, we'll see more money spent on hurricanes and less money spent on tornadoes.

What are the potential macroeconomic impacts of like increased financial scams. I assume maybe like most things, is that it can be good short term but bad long term? Like it depends how enmeshed things get and if we end up in a similar situation to 2008?

I can sort of blur my eyes and certainly see why some flexibility is necessary to evolve our financial systems, but something about a lot of this stuff feels shortsighted.

I’m not clear the distinction you’re making. Doesn’t coin base make more money is people think Crypto is real? Like rug pulls are relatively small potatoes for the big banks who could be making billions on fees if crypto is legitimized, I might even assume the opposite low level crypto fans or maybe better put “influencers” want to do unlimited crimes but the “industry” wants reasonable regulation.

Do they want this though? R/cryptocurrency is not happy, and if you want crypto legitimacy; wasn’t part of the complaint of the crypto industry that the SEC was too slow to make rules?

This was a fun book. One story I remember from this book was that working a telegraph was a full time job. And there was a decent amount of downtime, so they had sort of their own subculture, chatting, playing chess over the wire, etc.

Marc Andreessen made a point in a recent interview that there used to be a contact that said that liberals used to support billionaires who made a bunch of money and then donated it to charity, but then the liberal establishment turned away from billionaires and blamed them for all the world's problems.

But like Silicon Valley turned away from charity along time ago. In 2014, Larry page said he'd rather give his billions to Elon Musk to go to Mars. Most Silicon Valley folks have said that actually startups are the way to help humanity, not being charitable.

So I dunno, I disagree with you, but I feel like the whole social contract has broken down.

And presuming we elected folks to set tax rates and make decisions to spend that money helping people, I don't see anything ignoble about choosing to help manage that process.

But like given your whole "taking money on the threat of violence" quote, either you're a super-libertarian who 99% of the country disagrees with anyways. Or you do think the Government should spend money on things and maybe it's noble to be the person who does that (military etc.) You just disagree with this particular spending of the money in which case... Ok.

I wonder how much money they’re losing on it too even at those prices.

Ok, so I am curious, I’m not totally opposed to move fast and break things, but on a moving train?

This may be one of those projects I’m ok with a little over time and over budget.

What do you mean by total control? He appointed the watchdogs he just fired. Do you literally want Trump like walking through every agency?

AI is so good it’s giving us a 30% productivity boost, but we can’t fine anyone to buy it.

Also, how are they measuring productivity if not by some objective measure like increased revenue.

Needs an option for ‘both’ a P2 is an EC2 instance type.

> Isn’t X’s ownership less bias now?

No, decidedly not. The prior ownership may have been a little too close the government in the type of conversations they have. The current owner is arguably literally the government and may hold more sway over the Republican leadership than the president of the United States.

Like a year ago your argument may have made sense. Now… I’d love to hear your rational objective argument why Musk is less biased than Dorsey.

I don’t entirely disagree with you but this is a _very_ different world, that requires unraveling like everything about our modern society. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of overlap between RFK jr’s vision of the world, and the current chainsaw approach to government that calls every piece or government spending an entitlement.

I mean, actually, I would argue that free markets in America are in desperate need of defense, but probably not the kind that Jeff Bezos would provide.

Specifically away from business consolidations and monopolistic tactics. The very kind of thing that may lead to something like the breakup of say Amazon.

For people who get the flu? I thought that was just for mental health problems.