His story is a cautionary tale about real life vs idealism. The two come into conflict frequently, and sometimes violently. Nothing is more difficult or dangerous than holding power to account; the mechanisms we imagine are in place to hold power accountable exist purely in that imagination. The personal feelings of shame, guilt, or ethical responsibility we imagine there to be, or the social pressure brought to bear on those who demonstrate a lack of those qualities, is missing when push comes to shove. Being an idealist, really believing in these things, is the setup for great tragedy. The fundamental mistake is to believe that others think like you do or value the same things you value. Of course I know nothing of this particular situation, but the shape of it is all too familiar - an idealistic, inspirational collegue forced out after speaking truth to power. How many tens of such people do we know? How many of them do not actually get back on their feet? How many of them did we speak up for?
Yep. I often reflect on some of my career mistakes, especially when evaluating current decisions within the context of a job or interacting with other institutions, and what I wish I'd learnt earlier would be to "read a room".
Sure, there is technically a process for reporting wrongdoing, but there's no process for reporting wrongdoing and keeping your job, and keeping your job is more important. What isn't your job is taking moral stances on things, having political opinions, provoking what others might see as unnecessary conflict, in any form.
Sure, you could spend some time ensuring accessibility standards are being met, but really you shouldn't unless someone complains, because although you think it's good practice, you're being paid to put visible results on the screen, unless you can make a business case for it that's sufficiently compelling and rewarding that it's worth pursuing. You'll lose your job for not getting the thing shipped, but probably won't for it not being theoretically good enough, unless you're a real doctor or real engineer
Don't stick your neck out unless you control the outcome (for positive or negative), and figure out what you're really being told to do or asked to do, and keep your effort to that. Don't go above and beyond, it's out of scope and you're better off sleeping. Not joking. If you can't do that, you might struggle to stay employed, and it's not worth your personal risk.
At work, keep your opinions to yourself, nearly all the time, they're rarely important, just get the work done and go home, work isn't that important either, don't pretend like you're saving the world.
> What isn't your job is taking moral stances on things, having political opinions, provoking what others might see as unnecessary conflict, in any form.
This is wrong, and how you end up with flying drone face recognizing skullpopping murderbots. "I just work here" is an abdication of adult responsibility to self, family, and society.
It's not some idealistic stance, it's the truth. It's how we ended up with concentration camps in the USA multiple times, and why many companies are gearing up to build more right now.
I think you're both right and wrong. You're right that avoiding responsibility for the outcome of one's own work is wrong, and is how you end up helping to make the world around you a horrible place. At the exact same time, the previous poster is also right - you stick your head up because what your employer is doing is wrong (maybe not "personally enabling concentration camp right now" levels of wrong, but on the path to it all the same) and you will end up seeing your career and the lives of those who depend on your destroyed (as you lose the ability to keep body and soul together) without making a damned bit of difference to the final outcome.
In America, we've built our culture around collective abdication of responsibility for anything and everything, on almost any axis imaginable. The only way anyone with wealth and power ever faces justice is if they injure those with even more wealth and power.
It's easy to say, "if enough people just stood up for what was right, things would change", but how do you get from here to there without asking countless people to sacrifice their families on the altar of "maybe it will get better if you do, but don't count on it". At least in America, I think it will take widespread pain among the public before risking change becomes worth it.
It's awful to think about, but I think that's the heart of it: we (Americans) have built is a system where it is so easy to go from having everything (by historical standards) to having nothing (by current standards) that hardly anyone is willing to risk rocking the boat, even as it sinks and we all drown.
Yes, it's a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless. There is very little worth risking everything for, and most people's everything is pocket change to anyone who has the real influence. Make the best choices you can, but realize when it'll cost much more than it'll gain.
Absolutely, and 90% of people will happily do so. So your personal ‘line in the sand’ is just completely and utterly irrelevant (aside from your own satisfaction)
I think this stance is mired in the big picture but ignores small altruism. Neighbors who sheltered jews during the holocaust didn’t alter the system, but they saved real lives. Clandestine action for the better, in line with one’s convictions, can be genuinely worthwhile.
That's a fair point too, I was mostly talking specifically about work culture though, and intensely agree with doing good things for people on an individual or community level. That's exactly what you can control and has a real impact. Do it at work too, just do it within your sphere of influence, don't have a savior complex.
Sure, but that relies on you being able to do so by yourself. If you are trying to hide the jews in a barn with fifteen others and one of them talks, you may have done a good thing, but it was ultimately meaningless.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t take that stand anyway, it’s just frustrating and doesn’t bring any actual benefit to the people impacted by the thing you refuse to do.
Yours is a particularly extreme example I guess, but I didn't say it was a happy reality, I don't agree, and I agree.
It's not your job unless it's your job, but otherwise it's not your job, that's basically it, and sometimes in life it's your job to make the war machine, or if it's in your power to not make the war machine, then don't. If you're taking care of kids, it's your job to take care of kids, not have a moral stance on what your labor is going to. You're not the Angel of Death, and ideally you should do whatever you can to not be. These are the tricky bits of life.
Edward Snowden stuck his neck out, and while he may have won a virtue medal and might be chilling these days with a wife and kids as Russians, what he probably should have done was nothing, that's a sacrifice you make for an overvalued sense of personal heroism imo. Now he's beholden to Putin.
If you've already ascended some ranks and can make decisions that are good for people more broadly, great, that's part of your job.
> Don't stick your neck out unless you control the outcome (for positive or negative), and figure out what you're really being told to do or asked to do, and keep your effort to that. Don't go above and beyond, it's out of scope and you're better off sleeping. Not joking. If you can't do that, you might struggle to stay employed, and it's not worth your personal risk.
Generally good advice but I would caveat it. Sometimes the org doesn’t know it wants something, or doesn’t know that you are the right person to ask. For example, I’ve had good success when finding ways to save millions of dollars. And other, more domain-specific things that make management happy.
Granted, you don’t need to do this if your position is stable and that’s enough for you. But if you are early in your career, trying to move up, or just want to be on the keeper list when there are layoffs, simply doing what is asked may not be enough.
> you shouldn't unless someone complains … unless you can make a business case for it that's sufficiently compelling and rewarding that it's worth pursuing
> Don't stick your neck out unless you control the outcome (for positive or negative)
If there’s moral questions surrounding your employment and no structures to tackle them, then quit.
If there’s a way to garner support for a proposal in a way that will incur a significant cost to the organization if rejected, then leverage those closest to the top who you believe will understand this.
Basically, “If you come for the king, you best not miss”
It’s more nuanced then that. People don’t want others pretending to be superior to them, if they are not actually that much better.
e.g. A literal supergenius can behave very erratically nearly every week of the year, 40 years straight, and still achieve notable successes in life, such as Kurt Godel
But a regular genius pretending to be a literal supergenius and trying to do the same, is well at best going to be perceived as a clown.
And it gets even more lopsided as you go down. Someone merely very smart pretending to be a literal genius is never going to earn anyone’s respect around the table.
Lets be honest, most faculty members eventually become simple Ectoparasites on student work, or ruminate on problems they stopped making progress on for decades.
As someone prone to idealism, you need to careful of the external consequences of work that runs into conflict with institution politics, government goals, and foreign/domestic intelligence services (professional thieves.)
I am probably just a clown, but often had to consider the escalation of coercion stages in the context of personal resolve. You will be evil one day too... Best of luck =3
How does this have anything to do with standing up to harms? Im sorry this is starting to sound like the philosophy that the Nazi regime operated under.
<< Yep. I often reflect on some of my career mistakes, especially when evaluating current decisions within the context of a job or interacting with other institutions, and what I wish I'd learnt earlier would be to "read a room".
While I agree and even accept this answer in theory, I have a hard time putting it in practice. Just today it seems I unnecessarily ruffled some executive feathers by pointing out some -- otherwise clear -- issues no one dares to mention and I am wondering now if that was even worthwhile. After all, I am not paid for extra for it. Regardless of the choice made by executives, the only thing that would change is the amount of support work I would do for it.
I know for a fact that 9 out of 10 it is better for me ( and my career ) to stay quiet, but sometimes I just can't stay out of my way.
>Sure, there is technically a process for reporting wrongdoing, but there's no process for reporting wrongdoing and keeping your job, and keeping your job is more important. What isn't your job is taking moral stances on things, having political opinions, provoking what others might see as unnecessary conflict, in any form.
Up to a certain point. That answer didn't hold up well at the Nuremberg trials. After a point there's also dignity and morality, not just "keeping the job".
That only happened because they needed some show trials to pacify people. A few were picked to take the fall and the rest were quietly brought to universities and government labs all across western powers. The United States has a proud tradition of totally ignoring all the agreements that came out of those trials.
> Which people? The Europeans were occupied or liberated under effectively caretaker governments.
They were occupied but they weren't entirely busy: while "low" people were happy to kill ex-Nazi collaborators themselves, it's the post-war governments (all of them, USA's included) who needed, with those trials, to manifest a re-establishment of the rule of law once again. 80 years later we can see it's been a hypocrite farce in every part of it, but it saved lives, those that were worth of living, although spared Nazis, fascists and sometimes communists too.
> who needed, with those trials, to manifest a re-establishment of the rule of law once again
Do you have a source for this having been the motivation?
I’m admittedly most familiar with the French and American perspectives. Those weren’t concerned with pacification but creating an international sense of the rule of law and legal basis for the occupation and restructuring of those societies.
What modern corporate employee wouldn't (haven't?) sleepwalk into perpetuating horrors on innocent people and then really and truly believe it when they say "I was just doing my job..." I am not excluding myself, we have not magically solved the social/political circumstances that lead to the second world war, and we are doomed to repeat those mistakes if we take for granted that those structures just fizzled away because we blood sacrificed millions of people and then the victors did a rain dance over the burial mound.
> What modern corporate employee wouldn't (haven't?) sleepwalk into perpetuating horrors on innocent people and then really and truly believe it when they say "I was just doing my job
Plenty? All whistleblowers, and the magnitudes larger group of people who were not able to whistleblow but did instead decided to quit their job for ethical reasons?
Whether it's winners punishing losers, or e.g. the FBI/FDA/DEA/IRS/whatever punishing some company exexutives and employees, the potential for this to be a bad defense remains constant.
when it is winners vs losers, your line of defense is irrelevant, since winners decide rules of the game. We can partially tell the same that FBI/FDA/DEA/IRS punishes regular Joe much more harshly, compared to CEOs which almost never goes to jail unless he stole from other rich/in power.
Not trying to troll here, but, what does something like Nuremberg trails matter in a country where someone who can incite an insurrection and then become president again, or a world where international criminal court orders are ignored?
> what does something like Nuremberg trails matter in a country where someone who can incite an insurrection and then become president again, or a world where international criminal court orders are ignored?
Nuremberg had nothing to do with insurrections and revolutions. It also judged the Nazis according to standards that didn't exist when they committed their crimes; the ICC was created after Nuremberg as an imperfect system. Imperfect, however, is still better than nothing.
Given that this highly improbable outcome involves two separate coalitions of countries invading yours from both sides, “read the room” is a safe bet for all parties to make, including last minute flights to Argentina
If only I had used this outcome only as a highly understood example, as opposed to as the exact sitution that will befall the person I responded to... oh, wait!
That’s cool but it’s something I think about a lot
Like how some well known companies are implicated because of government contracts with that short lived regime in the 1930s
and its like thats not really a deterrent because you don't really know what a government will do, and accountability requires a multi coalition invasion, losing, and subsequent leaking of state records
the threshold for that to occur is so high, like for one, that government has to actually lose, and the one everyone is mad at typically doesn't
makes more sense to contract with all parties in all countries and just collect the checks
I think that specific example is a perfect choice to undermine the specific lesson you were aiming for
"cautionary", "real life vs", "Nothing is more difficult or dangerous", "exist purely in that imagination".
You're claiming that real life is always as in this episode; and so, I guess, that you should never oppose someone at an higher position? Or with more power?
It's healthy to be aware of the possibility that things could go this way, but it's definitely not a guarantee that they will; in some environments it's more likely to happen, in others more likely to not happen.
But if we always acted as selfish cynics, then yeah, real life would be guaranteed to be what you describe
how about not being a coward being enough of a reason to stand up for what you believe in. no where is it written that being brave entails success. sometimes though it is said that success entails being brave
Economists and auction theorists have a term of art: “revealed preference”. It’s typically not applied to society in the large, but I think it’s useful to zoom out from time to time.
Our society, whatever the internal dynamics, has a revealed preference in the extreme, a preference so forceful it’s an idee fixe, a singular objective.
We will sacrifice anything: arbitrary loss of life, arbitrary suffering and indignity, arbitrary damage to the planet to transfer wealth upwards constantly to the maximum extent that we can blow past the feeble speed bumps that our institutions represent.
This upwards wealth transfer is in two senses of the word “up”: from poor to rich, and from young to old. We openly advertise targets for the economy like “the stock market” (US equities overwhelming held by boomers and rich people), or GDP growth (real wages at the median, go back to Venezuela commie). We don’t even pretend we’re optimizing for anything else.
Lina Khan is trying to enforce laws already on the books and is deemed dangerously radical.
You think these sociopaths won’t kill people? They’ll kill millions of people if they have to, they’ve done it before.
My standard of living ten years ago was so high it was honestly gross, I imagine it was easily in the ballpark of a BlackRock quant. The year I quit was my second highest earning year in which I made an amount that is shameful given that my job was to sell digital fentanyl.
I will sacrifice my standard of living up to and including not living because I feel a deep identification with the abstraction I call “my fellow person”.
A lot of people will sacrifice their principles to preserve their standard of living. In what is looking to be a rough decade or two those people are a liability to that same abstraction.
> lot of people will sacrifice their principles to preserve their standard of living
The line where principles outweigh personal interests (alternatively, where individual interest should be suppressed for the group) vary from person to person, group to group. But they are universally ahead of where those who’d prefer humans weren’t flawed, in their view, imagine them to be. The easy excuse is to conclude everyone is evil. The hard work, that granted few of us are cut out for, is making do with the world we have. (The fun, in exploring the richness these “flaws” produce.)
Note: I’m not asking anyone to settle for a lower moral rung. I’m saying: see the world as it is, not as you judge it to be. Would spacefaring be simpler without gravity? Yes. But the universe’s beauty, ourselves included, could not then exist. Human ambition and aspiration and yes, greed, are not aspects of ourselves I’d ever wish away. Even if it would make some problems easier.
> We will render arbitrary people homeless to constrain the supply and push up real asset prices for homeowners
Yes. Because from the homeowner's perspective, they're maintaining their real standard of living.
Crafting good policy requires being very careful about whose relative standard of living you're sacrificing for the greater good. Because no matter how privileged you think someone is, for them, it's the baseline.
> We’ll tolerate flagrant cartel monopoly and flagrant securities fraud and all manner of evil to drive equities up?
No, not really. Shareholders win in the aftermath of antitrust action and trusted equity markets. We tolerate those things, the first much more than the second, but not for the reasons you presume.
I’m not sure what the theme of your contention is: it sounds like you’re basically saying everyone will fight as hard as possible with whatever means at their disposal to be maximally selfish.
But that tired toy example from game theory shows that everyone loses if both grass the other up. Countless studies of both human beings and computer programs in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma show that the wining strategy is not in fact to drive housing prices so high that the homeless problem eventually wrecks your property value.
This smash and grab, “how much can you carry” mafia capitalism has been tried before and the result was a guillotine.
> everyone will fight as hard as possible with whatever means at their disposal to be maximally selfish
No, I'm saying loss aversion is often misunderstood [1]. Both in its existence and strength. And the fact that it operates in relative terms, i.e. someone who is materially better off than they were 10 years ago may still throw their toys out of the pram if their neighbor is much better.
> the wining strategy is not in fact to drive housing prices so high that the homeless problem eventually wrecks your property value
Sure. The point is you also can't drive home prices down, because that hurts homeowners and activates them as a political bloc. (The solution is real home price growth as close to zero as possible amidst rising real incomes.)
I’m aware of the concept of loss aversion, but I think it as an explanatory factor for macro economics is a red herring: one of a long list of diversions in the grand company of all trickle-down economics.
People say that the without arbitrary incentives for arbitrary wealth that hard work and innovation won’t happen. Demonstrably false! The Internet that the current cartel is looting was a public private partnership! The best software these days is done substantially by passionate hobbyists!
People point to Silicon Valley and say “this wouldn’t be possible in Europe”. Then they point to the market capitalizations of the vampire megacorps that the world would be far better without as the success story.
People make other arguments slightly craftier: punitive taxes on the mega wealthy wouldn’t raise enough revenue to matter. True, but that’s not the point of a punitive wealth tax: the point of a punitive billionaire tax is to deprive billionaires of godlike power to restructure society in their own interest.
Anyone outside a few narrow bubbles can see that this is going very badly.
I’ll agree with you this far: it’s going to be a tall hill to climb to get people with homes worth 20 times what they paid and 401ks to vote for a sane future. But this is a comparatively recent phenomenon: older people used to be obsessively concerned with the prospects of younger people for trivial biological reasons.
These days? That “blood boy” transfusion thing Thiel is always on about? It’s a terrifying metaphor for the bigger picture. The procedure was pioneered so a father could keep his daughter alive at great risk to himself.
For some reason we now tolerate if not celebrate the vampire ideal of running that backwards.
> These days? That “blood boy” transfusion thing Thiel is always on about?
This complaint is old as civilisation. Cato complained about the price of pickled fish exceeding that of ploughmen, and that was hundreds of years before even the Republic peaked.
> punitive taxes on the mega wealthy wouldn’t raise enough revenue to matter
Who said this?
I’m a fan of higher (not necessarily punitive) taxes on billionaires. But you can’t trade that for middle-class income taxes 1:1; the former is far more volatile.
I’ve read Cato as well as undergraduate behavioral economics.
No tax on the wealthy is worth its weight in paper unless it breaks the back of fluid fungibility of money into policy. We have any number of ways to raise revenue, most of which would be trivial if Bezos cast one ballot like anyone else.
Directly or indirectly bribing legislators or regulators should be a capital offense.
> No tax on the wealthy is worth its weight in paper unless it breaks the back of fluid fungibility of money into policy
These are separate policy fronts. You've got a water leak in your engine and are trying to solve it by banning rain.
> Directly or indirectly bribing legislators or regulators should be a capital offense
Define this as loosely as Redditors consider lobbying and you essentially shut down democractic involvement to all but those who can afford the trip to D.C. to advocate in person. Or, to Cato, the Tribal Assembly. Bet you'd get a lot of rich people on board with that rule!
We’ve all been having some version of this conversation for decades: any time someone proposes limiting campaign finance or any other mechanism by which wealth becomes law some unfounded assertion gets made about how it will have unintended consequences that actually favor the people with the money.
“Trust me, I’ll get you over the barrel even more easily if you try to stop me. Shhh, just let it happen.”
In the sunset of dissolution everything takes on the aura of nostalgia, even the guillotine.
Society worked just fine without IO/PO striping, it worked just fine without K Street as an institution.
I don’t make this case because I take any joy in what will happen to Marie Antoinette. It’s my aim to persuade the investor class to cut a deal before it gets ugly.
> Society worked just fine without IO/PO striping, it worked just fine without K Street as an institution
It worked fine without anyone in tech, too. Or crypto.
Agree on K Street. But Trump's 2024 campaign is praxis in disintermediating K Street. We need more precision.
> I don’t make this case because I take any joy in what will happen to Marie Antoinette. It’s my aim to persuade the investor class to cut a deal before it gets ugly
This strikes me as idealistic, maybe arrogant. Marie Antoinette didn't have a private jet or wireable funds.
Even then, most of France's aristocracy fled and lived fine. Violent revolution is not a romantic reset. It's a civilisation bowing out of the competition. They only fester now, post Industrial Revolution, because it's no longer profitable to invade unstable neighbours. The July Revolution, for example, was checked by the threat of foreign intervention. Hell, the "Westphalian" sovereignty Putin talks about was actually a contract permitting the great powers to invade the HRE to guarantee its Constitution.
Arrogant? You guys think you’re immune from consequences. You think everyone smart and relentless enough to represent any challenge is either already bought or easily sidelined.
There are more of us than you think who walked straight out no education and no connections and trivially operated at comparable levels to privileged and credentialed peers.
But the values are different: when you combine a street kid’s skepticism of our magistrates and noblemen with the first hand experience of seeing how utterly bankrupt the whole artifice is you get implacable enemies with extreme tolerance for adversity who play for keeps in a way no one can who ever benefitted from the system.
I’m saying they can get away and get their resources out faster than before, and even before they were mostly fine.
> you get implacable enemies with extreme tolerance for adversity who play for keeps in a way no one can who ever benefitted from the system
These are never the beneficiaries in revolution. Ever. That doesn’t stop revolution. Folks say “fuck you” when enough is enough. But again, it’s not rebirth—it’s bowing out of the civilisation game. The “revolutions” we romanticise preserved preëxisting power structures.
To the extent America stands on the precipice of revolution, it’s in the molds of Cæsar and Augustus.
> I’m saying they can get away and get their resources out faster than before, and even before they were mostly fine.
A Reaper drone with Hellfire missiles can go just about anywhere that bilateral money laundering legislation and agreements can’t. If Bill Gross or Larry Summers manages to get gold bullion into the DPRK? Yeah, maybe he’s beyond the long arm of the American public.
I’m reticent to even mention this peripherally because it’s a troll magnet but the example is too compelling to pass by. I’m not a native of the region and I don’t feel fit to moralize about it, but I am an avid student of asymmetrical multi-axis warfare with an emphasis on countermeasures to state-sponsored digital surveillance and militarized domestic police forces because the only way the peace will be kept is if the arch-Randian villains back down after a robust force assessment.
Whatever the morality of this or that actor in the region, the strategy and tactics of the IDF and Mossad are basically a masterclass in flipping the ostensible balance of power over with ease and a sneer: and while the details are many people’s life’s work, the terminal game theory node is that they’ll do anything. They will always dramatically overreact with punitive collateral damage and flawless execution and there’s no upper bound. No one bluffs the IDF into accepting a status quo they don’t like over any meaningful period of time.
I’m pretty skeptical that this is a good posture for a nation state armed to the teeth, but again, not my lived experience.
It’s precisely the right posture for oppressed majorities in modern great power settings where none of the elected or appointed or confirmed officials can give Gates a parking ticket if he crashed a Tesla into Gary Gensler and somehow shouted a transphobic slur.
The Black community in America didn’t claw back some semblance of dignity via some condescending hand out: they scrupulously operated within the law until it was clear that the law was exhausted if not adversarial as a recourse and then Malcolm X and the Audubon Ballroom made it very clear that Afghanistan is a cakewalk next to Atlanta if some bargain isn’t struck. From Emmett Teal to LA 92 that community is a shining example of patriotism in both a dramatic preference for abiding the law and not fucking around on soft treatments of tyrants or collaborators when the missile goes up.
Amazon pays OSHA fines because it’s cheaper than obeying the law, there have been fatalities and countless injuries and Genghis Khan seems restrained and enlightened in terms of how those people should be handled if you want a meaningful deterrent. I’d happily settle for prison and call it a compromise. It’s difficult to point to a billion dollar line item on an invoice or a balance sheet anywhere and not see at least one moral felon giving you the finger in fucking Atherton or Los Gatos.
The rich and powerful and sociopathic can do exactly what the public will tolerate before we kill them, and not a Planck length more. They will export assets and shop for tax structures as far as they can before they cease to be a factor.
It astounds, perplexes, depresses, confuses, and enrages me that anyone anywhere would make an argument to egg them on to ever greater heights of brinksmanship with the most dangerous thing in the world: a vast public better armed than credible militaries and facing eviction via a letter from some walking atrocity like whoever does that for The Carlyle Group.
It’s legitimately unpredictable in outcome to start talking this way and it’s been with a very heavy heart that I’ve been slowly but steadily turning up the volume for a few years now and I wouldn’t do it on Reddit because there are some hotheads over there.
I say it here because many people in this community are a coffee break away from telling curly-haired Zuck with a chain to “lay low, let the bullshit blow over. shear a sheep don’t skin it.”
The GP is both articulate and exceptionally brazen in the standard operating procedure of Vichy pribclings with micro clout: to state as fact the inevitability of some outcome where Goldman Sachs defrauds even more customers by shorting the products they sell as fiduciaries even faster and somehow less than zero people go to jail now based on a theory of economics that can charitably be analogized to a giant clock on the inside of a sphere: exigent shock, Laffer Curve, supply side, rational agent, strong efficient. Wazy woozy fairy dust never landed not on the elemental chart. Goldman quants know this.
It’s a low key flex/threat that belongs to Weinstein or something, not our aristocracy of merit and nobility: this is happening and it’ll be a lot less painful if you just lay as still as possible.
The GP correctly states that it coming to blows will be bad for everyone, it’s wild speculation that the harm will skew a certain way, it’s not ridiculous but it’s also a sleight of hand: it’s an argument that the working public should back down before it goes to hell.
Irrelevant, spurious, adversarially stated with malice aforethought.
And also just deeply wrong at the level of a sign bit: the kleptocracy has a lot to lose and any robust pricing would see them more inclined to compromise than the recently evicted or in some places the shopkeeper who douses himself in gasoline and lights a fire that’s still burning.
This tired song is the lazy propaganda bedazzled with GSElevator wit and sneer and the implication of secret hidden knowledge. I spent a regrettable amount of time getting drunk at Catch in the Meat Packing district in 2017 and after three gin and tonics they’ll happily tell anyone who can get past the Face Kontrol how much contempt they regard the rest of us with. They think it’s fucking hilarious that we fold hand after hand.
> a lot of people bright enough to have been at the top of their field who for one reason or another are opposed to the status quo
Sure. They should do more. My point is “watch out, you’ll wind up headless” is more self soothing than a threat. If America flips over, the billionaires will be fine. Maybe a couple unlucky or stupid millionaires will lose their coin or lives. Most will, at worst, preserve their wealth; more likely, they’ll get more wealthy and powerful.
> Jane’s Prop desk and yet still under its boot
Nobody at Jane Street is wealthy enough to be politically relevant outside its founders. (Unless they’re trading from a very small town, and you’re in it.)
I admire your candor and persistence but I think I’m just wired a bit differently.
I agree that the present oligarch class is every bit as powerful in relative terms as any before them. They also have the advantage of modern technology: ubiquitous domestic surveillance and militarized police are clearly not designed to prevent petty crime.
And the last thing I want to see is chaos and bloodshed. But I do want working people to regain some level of bargaining power, and with an elite as insular and vulgar as this one, that probably means a credible threat at least in abstract.
Extreme military power has failed against motivated populations almost without exception in all asymmetrical scenarios this century: it is not a foregone conclusion that oppression lacks an upper bound.
The end state on the current trend lines would be a catastrophic failure of our civilization.
I’m not yet prepared to accept that as inevitable.
> that probably means a credible threat at least in abstract
When has this worked in practice to the benefit of those making the threats?
(Versus bargaining for more rights by dividing the elite.)
> Extreme military power has failed against motivated populations almost without exception in all asymmetrical scenarios this century
Internally? Each of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, et cetera seem to be doing fine.
> end state on the current trend lines would be a catastrophic failure of our civilization
Sure. But a revolution just speed runs that. (And we aren't the only civilisation on the planet.)
> I’m not yet prepared to accept that as inevitable
It's not even probable. Going back to the original comment, Americans' standards of living have been rising across almost every class. On an income and wealth scale, a positive-sum game, almost every category of American is better off than before.
What's changed in the last 50 years is on the relative standard. And in the political domain, a zero-sum game, that's led to some issues. But nothing terminal, not even close--ordinary workers still swing elections.
I don’t care and neither should you what consumer electronics and other durable goods cost. That’s not even remotely standard of living.
Housing, energy, healthcare, education. All off the charts inaccessible relative to 60 years ago. The Boomers are the Worst. Generation. Ever. Full stop.
When the LAPD beat Rodney King half to death on camera and all of the officers wielding the batons were acquitted?
Los Angeles burned.
Detroit. Watts. Harvey Milk was assassinated for a reason.
I will always strongly prefer a negotiated settlement between classes of society.
But one guy self-immolation in Tunisia kicked off regime change in 11 countries.
I abhor violence but I make no difference between violence in person and violence by economic or policy proxy.
I grew up in San Diego, half the guys I grew up with are former JSOC and even angrier than I am. Private equity people operate at our pleasure if it really came to it.
You remind me a bit of one of the smartest guys I’ve ever met. A poker player turned VC called Zach.
Brilliant guy, but cynical in a way that I never saw as his best self. He did well for himself and then kind of stopped worrying about the larger world.
But earlier, when he was younger, he constantly advised me to do things by a code more robust than self-enrichment.
I love and admire the guy, but I miss him trying to make the world better.
> any time someone proposes limiting campaign finance or any other mechanism by which wealth becomes law some unfounded assertion gets made about how it will have unintended consequences
Saying "directly or indirectly bribing" encompasses all democratic interaction. I indirectly bribe my electeds with votes when they do what I want. You need to be more precise than that language to make a point.
More pointedly, your issue is with money in politics. Not bribery, which is already illegal. Not paid lobbying, I don't think, unless we should outlaw the EFF. Not rich people per se, most of whom have the sense to shut the fuck up.
I appreciate that the phrasing “directly or indirectly” is a far cry from a reasonable draft of a bill.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was better thought out by a long way. I was being informal given this is HN.
We all know the moments in time when the public got knee-capped: Brooksley Born was highly on task preventing 2008 via her completely legitimate powers via the CFTC before Summers and Greenspan popped a cap in her ass.
The same is about to happen to Gary Gensler and worse Lina Khan.
This capture is a wratchet until it isn’t. And the Robespierre interlude is something we all hope to avoid.
You sir are clearly educated and astute and traveled, a cut above by far the typical HN apologist for contemporary Friedman shit.
If even you are willing to argue to the bitter end then I’m very sad about how brutal things will soon become.
The nuance around big-cap fraud is in fact wildly complex, sitting at the intersection of tired institutions and role models for young people like the Kardashians and emerging asset classes like BTC and the collapse of the traditional conservative movement and the bitch slapping of a DNC that coronates candidates rather than handing them primary ballots and the fucking Ito calculus of second degree non-stationary in the presence of a different underlying distribution every minute and exhaustingly many other factors.
But we went through the Enron thing, at a high level?
Because the public tolerates it. We have a financial sector where routine financing is run through permutations and combinations and evasions that in the default capital raise the legitimate entities would be far better served by some version of what YC does with e.g. the SAFE docs. When you apply string theory people to bond pricing you get one of two things: socially negative complexity / garish externalities and whatever the hell Medallion is doing.
Pushing that sector up into the double digits is weird: those people should be playing chess against Magnus Carlson not John Q Taxpayer. You can in fact convert genius into a gangrenous infection. And before you say that cheating is inevitable, inb4 predictable soundbyte, no it isn’t. The only two utilities of arbitrary wealth past mundane security and as much luxury as anyone can count (which is nowhere near billions) are blind “I Am The Repubkic” sociopathy and actual security in a world where the real ballers don’t feel safe on the same continent as their subjects. There are places where this is pushed even further: the City generally, let’s call it Canary Wharf is a wonder drug for international FX and outright fraud with thugs and just kind of a lesion on the Old Smoke.
Plus? Cheating is impossible or even difficult to detect or enforce or discourage to make an example of pour encorages les autres? Ask Madoff’s estate how it went to try that shit with the money of the donor dinner circuit. I recommend not fucking around and finding out on Jamie Dimon’s nest egg. You’ll wish you were never born.
Now if after all that unpleasant real talk about some but maybe not all the things you condescended via “reasons you presume” are actually a matter of the integrity of our companies and regulators and financial markets?
Then tell me you are already going through appropriate channels to bring the guilty to justice or can the TED talk and count your pieces of eight.
You seem like a really smart person with at least some basic moral instinct so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just ask you to not try to teach your grandfather how to suck eggs.
Creative idealists tend to abstract away the social politics of power and are often suprised by the result of their actions. They do not have enough fear of others and what they are capable of. The response is not only a personal surprise, but an epistemological shock. The solution is to remain aware of the reality of your situation. This is particularly difficult for thinkers and dreamers because their attention is often elsewhere; but one must make the effort or bad abstraction will hit you like a freight train. The other solution is to ally yourself with other less pragmatic principled idealists such that you can help them assess the situation and take mutually beneficial action. One must understand the battle to come, you must feel the fear of failure and the possibility of success. The worst thing you can do is be unaware of the game entirely, or be aware and disdain it, and so play it like a fool. Finally, if you are extremely talented and recognized for it, the de facto situation is that you acquire advocates to play the game for you. But this is a rare position, and not without its drawbacks.
In the case of the GP I changed my wording to be softer and refer directly to the site guidelines. (Originally it said "Please don't take HN threads on political flamewar tangents. Nothing good's going to come of it, whichever way you lean.")
This story really hits home for me. My dad was a physics teacher, and these complaints sound all too familiar—especially this part:
"I did what the University told me to do, and then these administrators ruined my life for it."
It’s frustrating how often dedicated educators are forced to navigate politics instead of focusing on teaching. The best educators are usually the least political, while those who thrive in politics often end up as administrators.
Workplace HR “ethics” or “whistleblower” policies and processes are set up to protect the organization, not the person making the complaint. It’s you against the power structure in these situations, so you better have all your ducks in a row. Consulting with a very trusted advisor or attorney is probably a good idea.
> The best educators are usually the least political, while those who thrive in politics often end up as administrators.
The lady he accused of ethics violations was named Dept Head around the same time he made the complaint. An "old head" raising an issue against a new rising star...
My Dad was a university professor in mathematics. He loved his field! But the math department he worked in was taken over by someone who loved playing politics and maintaining power by playing favorites. My Dad refused to kiss the ring, and paid the price for that in his career advancement. He had tenure so it was never as bad as what happened to Marshal Brain.
Now we have n == 2, this could be a pattern. Of course it's a similar situation outside of academia too.
I met Marshall a few times. He was a good teacher and someone who had a positive impact on several successive classes of students who wanted to start companies and build meaningful products + technologies on that campus.
And I trust (quite a bit) that whatever he brought to light should be followed up on - if no other reason than to respect his memory. I hope it is taken seriously and those who retaliated find themselves w/o their positions of responsibility and power over other faculty.
> “My career has been destroyed by multiple administrators at NCSU who united together and completely ignored the EthicsPoint System and its promises to employees,” Brain wrote.
Well, lesson learned. Take your ethical concerns to the public/press instead. The retaliation would be just as swift as it is with The Process. Or: abandon ship and leave the system to consume itself.
He probably cared more about losing a job he loved, the startup community he was fostering in NC, and his https://ecoprt.com/ project than about publicly fighting a battle over a minor ethical complaint about a shady hire... at least in the early days before it snowballed.
> Take your ethical concerns to the public/press instead
Or at least above the heads of the people who are fucking around. Press might be seen as vindictive. But a sharp letter to the trustees of the university, possibly even some political offices, would not be out of place.
I received my engineering masters from NC State, but not this department (I was in the Industrial & Systems Eng. dept, in the IMSE program: https://imsei.ncsu.edu/). That said, my program was intentionally broad & flexible because students seeking higher ed in manufacturing engineering might be EEs, MEs, CS undergrads, or something entirely different and could be pursuing any sort of leadership role in a manufacturing environment. Because of that, the program often referred students to Brain's program, and it was always common knowledge that one of the bigger differentiators at NCSU's engineering school was the focus on entrepreneurialism (especially compared to most other regional unis in the southeast, except perhaps GATech and maybe UFlorida).
Even if the loss of Brain and/or the scandal around the circumstances seem fairly inconsequential to most of you, it's a big deal for NC State's engineering program and the students there. It's also likely going to be a big deal for large donors like John Sall (co-founder of the SAS Institute, which is HQ'd in Raleigh).
> (DARPA) has named Dr. Veena Misra to the Microsystems Exploratory Council (MEC) for a three-year term.. total funding with Misra either as a PI or a mission-critical Co-PI exceeds $59 million.
> After 14 years of outstanding leadership as head of our Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), Dan Stancil will be stepping down from his position.. Veena Misra.. named Interim Head.. [May 2024] Veena Misra has been named as the permanent head of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at North Carolina State University.
Lots of people in this thread alluding to similar experiences "speaking truth to power" or "failing to read a room" or "not playing politics" and suffering the fallout from it. But as someone at the start of their career I'm kind of interested in the specifics--what kinds of ethical concerns? What forms of retaliation? Everyone's being pointedly vague and I guess that's necessary to an extent to preserve internet anonymity (or maintain a reputation, if your professional work is tied to your HN account) but it is frustrating as someone trying to figure out how to "read the room."
1. Generalised nepotism: heads-of favouring their buddies / installing crony networks, hiring/promoting only people of certain races or ethnic backgrounds, influencing supplier relationships for their own benefit (controlled by their family / friends / network), etc.
2. Toxic personality / power / ego and the political games, bullying and power plays that go along with that (to the detriment of the organisation).
3. Dangerous levels of incompetence (from the perspective of their reports), when people who shouldn't be allowed to operate a stapler are put in charge of major business units. Often everyone is fine with this if they don't touch anything, it only becomes a problem when they are influenced to make sweeping changes.
Sometimes you get the whole package in 1 person. Of course, one person's nepotistic incompetent bully is another person's charming and shrewd nephew. Usually they got into their position through the strength of their network(s) so if you go at them you're likely to have a bad day.
>Everyone's being pointedly vague and I guess that's necessary to an extent to preserve internet anonymity (or maintain a reputation, if your professional work is tied to your HN account) but it is frustrating as someone trying to figure out how to "read the room."
Allpw me to possibly explain a bit about why there is a degree of cagey-ness/intentional vagueness. A lot of the startup world focuses around exploiting opportunities where there are profits to be realized in areas of mercantile endeavor that can ne in a bit of a grey zone, as it were. Areas the big boys won't touch because it's too risky, but that can have a large payoff with just a relatively small infusion of capital. So when you're talking a lot of these places, there is certainly room for a bait-n-switch to occur. Circumstances may be wildly different from instance to instance; but in general the same threads and warning signs are there. Going into specific details, as you point out, is a great way to out yourself. Sometimes it's just enough to tell someone to look hard, and generally with the prompting they'll figure it out.
Now as far as reading the room goes... The sapd truth is this. If you didn't fund raise, you ultimately don't get to call the shots. Just how it works. Now it's best to listen to the folks you hire; don't get me wrong, but in most cases, an org does everything it can to make sure it is only steered from the top down by edict. It's not perfectly so, and there are ways to manage up (techniques no one who knows em is going to discuss in public), but at the end of the day, with power concentrated in the guy at the top, it comes down to how much trust you confer unto that person as a human being. If you're bringing up an ethics concern, and you're pretty sure it's not going to be taken well, or you've seen it ignored... Well... Adjust your trust levels accordingly.
> Kashani said Brain submitted numerous complaints through the EthicsPoint system and said tensions arose because Brain didn’t “play the political game” through his questioning of higher-ranking administrators.
This right here is why I scoff at “anonymous reporting systems” or stuff like EthicsPoint, for the simple reason that the only ethics that ultimately matter in an organization are those of everyone above you, and those individuals have a vested interest in preserving their political capital over acting or behaving ethically.
It’s disgusting and reprehensible if true, but it’s sadly not surprising. Those of us who behave ethically are little more than prey to those whose moral compasses are fungible.
Organizations create these reporting systems to make themselves look good to outsiders, but they will punish you severely if you actually try to use them.
It's kind of like your grandmother's good china: Look at it all you want but don't you dare use it.
Stuff like this is incredibly confusing to people on the autism spectrum.
> Stuff like this is incredibly confusing to people on the autism spectrum.
Upvoted for this alone. We thrive in clearly defined systems, but the powers that be are careful to hide the actual systems of power from us. It’s infuriating to find out we’ve been playing the wrong “game”.
It doesn't sound like the process was anonymous, as it implies she found out it was him pretty quickly and worked to close ranks against him. Kinda defeats the purpose but I guess in any small organization it's probably easy to figure out who it is.
There's no such thing as an anonymous reporting system in a company that owns the reporting infrastructure.
Some companies contract out such systems to a third party to reinforce the illusion of anonymity. But what do you think happens when the CEO says to the contractor "Tell me who wrote this or we won't hire you again"?
It's sad to see a group of engineering professors having political squabbles involving unethical behavior in response to an ethics complaint.
Ethics are supposed to be a core part of engineering, not too dissimilar from medicine. Good thing those folks are in academia where they can't hurt the rest of us.
Engineering ethics is completely different from classroom ethics. Engineering ethics is all about compliance. If you build a missile to kill people, you better make sure it works as described. Who it kills is none of your business but if it doesn't work as described then it's a breach of "engineering ethics". It's funny when people on HN call for the "professionalisation" of software engineering. The only person who benefits is management who will happily throw the poor engineers under the bus the moment a self driving car hits somebody. Hold the entire organization responsible, starting from the top, not the lowly engineer.
> Brain’s complaint contained allegations of wrongdoing... regarding repurposing the Engineering Entrepreneurs Program meeting space to accommodate a new hire.. “What came back was a sickening nuclear bomb of retaliation the likes of which could not be believed”
This is funny because it's so accurate. I worked a year or two in college doing IT support for the College of Business in my final years of school. The prior boss who had actual experience in running IT departments was run out (fired) and replaced by an economics professor who had no idea what he was doing. The economics professor lead the charge in running out his predecessor. I don't know the reason but it was pretty ugly and everyone in IT support had zero respect for the economics professor. I came in after the fact so I had no skin in that game.
As an aside, every professor got a brand new $4000 Dell every year because if the college didn't spend its budget, it would get less money the next year. Most of these professors just used Office to do their lesson plans and that's it. This was in the 1990s and it was a huge waste of money. I would imagine it's much worse now. That probably had something to do with it.
I recently read a quote that paraphrased went like, "bureaucracies care about following procedure over outcomes."
I hope US universities get fixed. Their current state is a great disservice to the future of the country.
sounds like typical high school bullying except by adults and so-called professionals. how does a disagreement between two turn into multiple departments jumping in for one side?
I've been in two situations like this where I eventually "WON". You don't simply heal. You don't accept that that just wasn't the place for you and move on. What you do is have your perspective on other humans permanently and irrevocably changed. If you are a certain kind of person who values truth and personal responsibility, you come to understand that the world is fundamentally incompatible with you, and are faced with the choice of living a meaningful life where you are constantly preyed upon and abused, or living a meaningless existence in which you betray everything you ever valued about yourself.
"If you are a certain kind of person who values truth and personal responsibility, you come to understand that the world is fundamentally incompatible with you"
This logic is flawed in that you are assuming no one else shares the same values as you do.
That's not an assumption embedded in what I said. The fact that I identify with Brain's circumstances shows that I'm aware and believe in the existence of such people other than myself. The reason that I "won" my battles is a result of at least some shared values and perceptions of others around me. It's not about that, it's about the reality of what awaits you if you want to live your life a certain way and can't accept living it differently. That is all.
You have to resolve the fact that his values existed in that sphere. If his values exist then surely there are others. The whole him against the world defeatism is ultimately flawed logic.
I consulted at a Stanford biomedical department that openly used age discrimination to displace older full-time employees. They also were biased in hiring researchers and staff who tended to be of the same ethnicity and characteristics as PIs, and they abused part-time workers for years to deny them benefits, organization-wide.
There's a year-old TedX talk allegedly by Marshall Brain in which he talks about climate change and proposes making NCSU, ASAP, into a carbon-neutral exemplar. Did he have support on moving forward on this endeavor? Is the talk video genuine?
My son wants to be a mathematician. I told him never go into academia because it's a pit of poisonous vipers, administrators and professors both. I'm going to send him this article to hopefully re-indoctrinate him in case he forgot my previous message.
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact technician-editor@ncsu.edu or call 919-515-2411.
"
Must be a skeevy website to just rather not have me than not spy on me
I don't know why so many people want to go into academia these days.
Tenure is a multi-year rat race with worse hours than a seed stage startup (to be fair to the startup, at least you have feedback in the form of sales and VC fundraising). The pay is bad and the politics are incredibly petty. Tick off the wrong person and your career is torched.
Having worked with some ex-academia people I can feel this. They often seem to bring that bitterness (and in all honesty a certain level of masochism) with them to the workplace even after escaping.
The article suggests he was let go for "submitting numerous ethical complaints" but it is utterly unclear to me what these ethical complaints could have possibly been about, and the only source in this article is a starry-eyed protege. I am wondering if Brain was (perhaps unintentionally) abusing the complaint system as a way of adjudicating political disputes: "this person is stubborn and wrong" elevates to "this person is behaving unethically." My suspicion is that the numerous ethical complaints evidenced a pattern of unstable behavior.
I don't like speaking ill of the recently deceased. But I also don't like jumping into conspiracy theories based on platitudes about "the system," when there are more obvious explanations: his last email is a work of unhinged paranoia and resentment, not truth-telling in the face of oppression. It is obvious that Brain was mentally unwell in his last few hours; I wonder how long that was going on.
There is a stark divide emerging between the sorts of people that in my view speak truth to power, even if they speak poorly or strangely or are entirely unable to read the room, and the kinds of people that have internalized the ideology that nothing is wrong and anyone that complains, especially more than once, is most likely mentally unstable, paranoid, delusional, and so on.
Every character in this story used mostly internal tools plus I don't know the rules in NCSU, but the reactions around his issues look like weirdly huge. "Retired" at 63?
WRAL TV deleted both their web page and Youtube video clip? Supposedly the video transcript quoted a student saying that it was the second shooting on campus that night. Did WRAL have an update on the story?
