My first thought was that the sanctions are due to investigations into US presidents (like role of Bush in Second Gulf War or Obama/Clinton's role in Libyan Civil war) but it is due to Israel's PM. It's amazing how US admin is making their displeasure known in most destructive way (for their own and allies soft power) possible.
> Hypothetical scenario: we have 100 houses, and 200 young families looking for one. Your solution in effect is: let's give 100 houses to the 100 young people with an inheritance
This assumes that each family only gets a single house. With enough wealth you can buy out all the houses (not considering other factors)
Of course? I think we are debating the same side of this point though: "Inheritance is a horrible way to divide prosperity within society, as it doesn't take into account the wants or needs of the people still alive."
If that is not the case, I unfortunately still didn't get your point.
Where do you think the money that is accrued by the most wealthy will be spent/invested/parked? What will its effects be on the broader economy?
Assuming that the money is all used for altruistic purpose, I could agree with your point. But we know that this money is often used for not so altruistic purposes like investing in PE which asset strip the productive parts of economy or use the money to influence politics and elected representatives via lobbying.
>>Where do you think the money that is accrued by the most wealthy will be spent/invested/parked?
In most advanced economies today, that's equity. The ordinary person thinks of wealth as money lying around in the bank, which the rich person refuses to spend on anything useful. And instead either hoards, or spends on luxury things which cause resentment to the remainder.
The real question is for most people today its easier than ever to invest and then give it to their children. Why aren't people doing it?
>The real question is for most people today its easier than ever to invest and then give it to their children. Why aren't people doing it?
I've been out of full time work for 2.5 years now and had to slowly dwindle my 401k when emergencies popped up.
I didn't think this community was this isolated from the economy given the hundreds of thousands of tech workers displaced these past few years alone. Take a look at what it's like for non-tech workers and come back to ask that question.
And then they lobby to reduce protections and layoff haphazardly to male sure there's no career progression. Then when that's exhausted you move everything overseas because that's still too expensive.
> Poolside partnered with CoreWeave to build one of the largest data centres
Nvidia has a backstop deal with Coreweave [1]. I am sure this is all above board but seeing how these giants all have incestuous relationship with each other makes me uneasy about putting money in the markets.
Yeah, the first article I linked says Poolside plans to spend much of the $1B investment from Nvidia on GB300's. It's all just one circular flow at this point with Nvidia giving everyone cash that they agree to use to buy GPUs from them.
Looked at Shaun Maguire's twitter page and I find it appalling. Maybe I was naive about people in tech being more tolerant (as they both work with and build for diverse people).
I think there’s an argument that the pandemic era caused a lot of resentment in tech executives. They didn’t like employees having better negotiating power, resenting the pay increases and also things like support for BLM or trans rights, and stuff like RTO factored into that showing people who’s the boss. There was also a successful outreach attempt which went under the radar until Semafor published this:
I note this "tolerance" seems to only go one way. Tolerance means supporting the people I like (e.g. "diverse" people), but it never seems to mean tolerating people I don't like. True tolerance is the reverse: tolerating people whose views you find abhorrent.
As someone who previously worked in US with H1Bs who were making well over half a million, I doubt your statement. I have moved out of the US a few years back though.
But regardless, I sincerely hope this policy sticks without any loopholes. This policy will only incentivise companies to move more of their operations to other countries and only keep the bare minimum in US to keep their US business thriving.
As someone who worked with mulitple H-1Bs making less than their peers, I believe his statement.
This visa is very two faced. One hand, it's been used to import some really smart people into the United States who have gone on to do incredible things. Other hand, it's been used for job replacement by "native" workers who can do the job but were "too expensive".
I've worked with and hired people on H1B. At least from my experience they're treated (from a job offer perspective) just like any other candidate. Some get bigger offers because they negotiate well, are in high demand positions etc and some don't. There was no lowballing candidates because they're on H1B or need sponsorship.
Then that's your experience. I've worked with H-1B where their salary was lowballed or job title was. Not to mention the difficulty in switching jobs and 5 years in, they were severely underpaid.
My original comment about being two faced I still stand by.
Thatcher era privatization has been proven to be epitome of "short term gains for long term pain". Water, Power, Gas and Rail all privatized in a short span of decade and now the future generations will be footing the bill.
Don’t forget about selling off of NHS hospitals. I don’t think many people realize how much of the NHS is privately owned. NHS pays the owners for use of the facilities. It’s insane.
Agreed!Two things here: 1. Totally deficient regulatory framework and 2. The argument for those on the Right or Left is - do those running the company bear the consequences of their actions? Do public servants? Almost never. We need water, power, roads etc., So define the goals for these and get people to run them (public or private) who will bear consequences for a F.U. Politicians almost never face the consequences of their decisions. If there was at least some linkage the future might be different. That is a fundamental problem with bureaucracy as well.
As a far distant example: Tony Blair sails into opulent old age as a 'respected statesman' having lied about weapons of mass destruction incurring the deaths of 150K - 1 million.
Philosophy split off mathematical logic 200 years ago. Boole and Bolzano lived around 1800 to 1850 or something. There were no contributions from philosophy after that.
Chomsky is one I grant you, he was influential in both computer science as well as linguistics. But his success in linguistics was even more revolutionary than his influence on CS, exactly because he introduced abstraction, rigor and various ideas from computer science and mathematics into linguistics.
What it actually seems like is that Humanities are trying to retain/gain power in this new world where it's increasingly apparent that rigor is far more valuable.
If humanities taught logic, and actually rigorous analytic capabilities that were on par with STEM, I don't think we'd be in the situation we're in now.
Instead it's the opposite. The departments have made humanities increasingly easier, thereby devaluing them even more.
Rigor is only valuable because the nuance of our existence, captured in the humanities and beyond the dichotomy of true or false, has been erroded away by an entire society built on top of abstract economic concepts in place of true communal bonds that sustained humanity since our inception. This is why Europe and many countries other than the US have healthier humanities, they still have some vestiges of true community that is the heart of humanity, not merely the honor among thieves we see in the US that unites us.
Hi, Phil major here. I did math. I did logic, which was required. My peers in other humanities generally did not. But Phil might be the only exception.
Further I ended up taking a class that actually read original Greek texts, which isn't all that common even within the department I was at.
One can graduate in philosophy without having heard a formal logic lecture. Philosophy only has rigor in some branches, most modern ones are less rigorous and more social, political or economical.
So far the entire field of "AI safety" is one big grift that has never produced anything of value. The people who work in that field have vivid imaginations but lack the practical writing skills to become published sci-fi authors.
What now? How would you even begin to know this? It sounds like you are out of touch if you don't think low wage earners can tell the vast difference between normal people and billionaires.
