@whatihear's banner p

whatihear


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 07 03:01:39 UTC

				

User ID: 917

whatihear


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 07 03:01:39 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 917

One of your main bits of evidence that Americans are disrespectful is that we dress like slobs, but that's not what respect means. You can tell a little story about how dressing up conveys respect for the people around you by showing that you put in effort, and respect for yourself by presenting yourself nicely, but you can also tell a story about how dressing down conveys respect for the people around you by releasing them from the obligation to perform a silly social ritual that per everyone's revealed preferences they don't want to perform, and respect for yourself by living authentically. Another one would be that dressing nicely shows off either wealth or a particular kind of cultural competency that encodes class in a way that is inaccessible to some people, therefore putting them down and displaying contempt for anyone who can't manage it. Since you have some background in fashion, this might be an alien perspective to you, but it's definitely not the case that nicer-clothes = more respect. Respect is about how you treat people. How you dress is part of it, and showing up to a wedding in sweats is obviously disrespectful, but it's not at all obvious that going about your daily life in casual clothing is disrespectful.

I'll allow that we may have had a hiatus in class expression between the 40s and 70s (though I'm pretty dubious even of this), but the idea that class was invented in the 80s is absurd. The robber barons, Southern planters, and the Easter financiers around the turn of the 20th century were all way more overt in their class expression than the elite of the 80s. We had a rash of anarchist terrorism motivated on a class basis that resulted in a president getting assassinated. Just walk through the historic part of Detroit and tell me with a straight face that class was invented in America in the 80s.

Finally, the idea that Europeans should be held up as exemplars of respect is crazy to anyone who has worked in a multinational company. Southern Europeans are generally perfectly lovely, but nearly without fail upon having some distant co-worker be rude and unprofessional to me I'll look up where they are based and it's somewhere in Northern Europe (and no they aren't anglophone). I don't actually mind this too much because it means they don't dissemble and you know where you stand with them. I'd much rather work with a Dutchman or German than someone from a high power distance culture who will either not call out a bad idea if they are lower rank or bully people if they are higher rank. Fortunately, there is a culture that manages to both be low power distance and professional: mine. Yes, I understand that this is culturally dependent and everyone has their own perspective. My perspective is that Americans do by far the best job of both remembering that their co-workers are people with egos and getting shit done. (I will say that the French that I've worked with in a professional context seem much closer to the American norms of professionalism than a lot of other Europeans).

For what it’s worth I think one of your two options is the most likely explanation, but this is a false dilemma. There is a third option: non-cis people might be more likely to lie (both to themselves and others) to make themselves seem more interesting.

As nice as it would be, the United States is not actually capable of trashing an economy by withholding trade. There are other countries out there that Cuba can trade with. If they had a system that worked, they could have enough funds to buy gas. Cutting off trade obviously isn’t great for their economy, but if they managed their country well it would just be a drag on growth.

I’m a little confused about what you mean by the “actual” energy used to do a thing. Energy is either used for some purpose or it is not. To rephrase what I think you are saying, it sounds like you are refining the energy theory of value to say that things should be valued by the “minimal reasonable” amount of energy used to produce the thing. This seems like a good refinement to me because then you can’t mess with the value of a thing by just making it while sitting in the cab of your idling F350. Is that what you meant?

I still think this is off base, though it does make it harder to trivially produce counter examples. It just seems obvious to me that some lower energy things are much higher value than high energy things. Immaterial services are the most obvious example, but I’ve already talked about that with the doctor example. You say doctors are like more efficient machines, so maybe you agree with me here? Another good example would be high fashion items. Before the “minimal reasonable” refinement you could maybe argue that actually flying the models and designers to the show circuit makes them high energy products, but the “minimal reasonable” refinement rules that argument out.

I do think an energy theory of value gestures at something interesting, but it just seems unable to handle large swaths of the modern economy. Are you actually proposing it as a bedrock principle for an overarching economic theory, or are you just saying it is an interesting idea and an improvement over the labor theory of value. I would agree with the later.

The energy was spent training the physician before the service was rendered.

This also leads to super silly results. Leaving aside that it would still value the medical advice way below a flight if you do your amortization properly, it also means that different doctors advice would have different value and that difference would have nothing to do with how good they are but instead the fact that one took an elevator to class throughout medical school and the other had classes on lower floors.

I almost wrote it midEVIL, but this is high brow forum.

Great write up! Thanks!

How does your energy theory of value deal with high value and low energy services such as medical consultation? How does it deal with more efficient machines? A machine that created 1000 widgets and hour and requires 2 kilowatts to operate is clearly less valuable than a machine which produces the same number of widgets per hour and requires 1 kilowatt. I do think energy is a useful tool for examining economies in general. We can learn useful things by comparing night time light pollution in China with their stated GDP numbers. That doesn’t mean it is a good theoretical basis for a theory of value though. It’s better than labor, but still wrong, and still seems politically motivated. Marx wanted to do a socialist revolution, so he grounded value in labor and I think you may be doing something similar.

For your next book I suggest Human Action by von Mises. He has a similar discussion of theory of value, and I think this “subjective theory of value” makes the most sense of any I’ve heard. Before I read him I just called it the “market theory of value.” Basically he points out that there is no inherent value to a good, value is determined through a process of negotiation with the people around you. The only way to price something is to see what the market will pay for it.

Isn’t the doctor shortage almost entirely because the AMA restricts medical school class sizes? I know of at least one quite smart and motivated guy who did not get into medical school when he totally should have. People are doing insane resume padding things like working in hospitals for a few years before medical school. The doctors have a midevil guild and they are restricting the supply of labor, patients be damned.

but on the ground, already, in my perfectly respectable, mainstream, upper middle class environment, the reaction was almost universally a certain giddiness and excitement

I was pretty young for 9/11, so my impression was that Europeans had a lot of sympathy and support and only soured on the reaction later. This is a big update for me, so thanks for letting me know. You just converted my contempt for Europeans at your general economic dysfunction, cultural arrogance, churlish ingratitude, and eagerness to commit civilizational suicide into genuine hatred.

Edit: I’m seeing other Europeans in this thread disagreeing with you, so I’m updating back to “leftists are evil everywhere.”

Keep in mind that ~90% of Iranian missile launchers have been destroyed, so most of what they will be launching from now on are drones, which can be intercepted with much cheaper systems than full on Patriots and would never require a THAAD. I think the main interceptor for shaheds is a relatively cheap air to air missile at this point in the war.

Would be funny if we started airdropping guano on islands to annex them in order to avoid having to go to Congress for it.

I would mostly agree. This war is over nukes, terrorism, old grudges and regional power. I do think some Iran hawks are hawks for cultural reasons though. At the object level we are jockeying to make Iran less powerful and more compliant, but how we got there is importantly related to their barbaric culture. Part of why a powerful Iran seems like such a bad thing to me is that I don’t want to live in a world where a culture like theirs can project power.

Course not. We finished our conquest and settled in behind our comfy double moat so we could switch gears to becoming Leviathan II.

I actually find some Christian conservatives pretty off putting because of their views on women as well, however, I’m way more comfortable with them than with Muslims because Christianity is a much bigger tent and as far as I can tell the most distasteful Christian attitudes come from weird low church Christians who as far as I can tell are wrong about their religion. Meanwhile, I’ve read the Quran cover to cover and as far as I can tell ISIS is just mostly right about how to interpret their religion. Of course western Muslims lie to themselves and others about how bad it is (they translate “jihad” to “struggle” when translating the Quran which is obvious dishonesty because “jihad” is a word in English too), but the theological grounding for extremism is so strong in Islam that you can’t trust that a population of moderate Muslims won’t swing to extremism at some later date. The Middle East was way more chill about their religion 200 years ago, but the Quran says what it says, and it’s the revealed word of god.

Maybe the feminist angle is not what most right wingers really hate about Islam, but for me at least it is the main thing. I’m somewhat of a western chauvinist and one of the important ways the west is culturally superior is in how we treat our women. Islam’s treatment of women is barbaric and disgusting in and of itself because women are human beings, but it’s also disgusting to me because of how alien it is to my culture. I’m a basic women-are-people equality feminist (a right wing position these days I’m afraid). Maybe I’m not the modal right winger (I’m not that right wing), but while there could be some people from whom the feminist anti Islam line is bad faith, I assure you that it is a real motivating concern for some of us.

It’s perfectly possible for dumb people to disagree about policy and to outnumber smart people. Also, since we are talking about the tech right here, the thing about money is very silly. Yes the smart people are very rich in this case.

The point I’m making is that “if you were really smart, you would have power” just is not true in general. Intelligence can help in getting power but it doesn’t always.

you have to explain why the smart guys let the dumb guys get all the guns to order them around with.

In a democracy with lots of dumb people in the electorate, that’s not all that hard to explain. The electorate needs to be good enough at gauging authenticity to pick aligned dumb people over misaligned smart people as their rulers. Actually, the electorate doesn’t even need to be dumb, they could just be angry enough that none of the smart ruler options share their values to just say fuck it.

These sound like companies that will fail

All have been well established and successful to varying degrees. I’ve observed this pattern at FAANG, at unicorns, at established enterprise shops, basically everywhere. The only place that seemed to engage with my open source work was a very early stage startup, so maybe it helps there but for the vast majority of tech jobs it just doesn’t matter.

The dude who wrote OpenClawd literally got hired by OpenAI less than a month later.

Just write a virially successful project with enormous buzz bro. It’s a totally viable career path for average devs to become the Twitter main character for a week and land a job!

Obviously this will work for some people, but that doesn’t mean it will for most.

Sounds like you should change careers.

I’ll hang onto the gig where I get overpaid to write fun little programs until it gets automated away, thanks though. I was talking about barely having the energy to do extra unpaid work for fun on open source stuff. That I do it at all means I’m in the top few percent of professional devs passion wise. Open source work is not normal, and if you think it is you must be way out of touch with most of the industry.

Setup a GitHub repo and sling whatever code you have already developed at it. Then writeup a 1000 or so word guide on how you did everything.

If only this were true. I’ve never had an interviewer ask about my open source work in a way that indicates they clicked through the links in my resume and read the well formatted READMEs on the projects I maintain. When I do interviews, the rubrics I’m supposed to work towards don’t have any way to include an assessment of open source work, and other members of hiring committees have never known what I’m talking about when I bring up a candidates open source work. The general sentiment seems to be that evaluating open source work is unfair to people who’ve done their work in corporate environments. I’m sure there are some hiring managers in some companies who can and do use it as a signal, but the degree to which it is ignored in standard tech companies is a huge blackpill. It’s not terrible advice because it can’t hurt, it’s just not the magic foot in the door some people hope it would be. There’s no magic key if you’re early career, especially these days. I feel bad for the youngsters.

Your networking advice sounds good, but I find it exhausting and I know a lot of great hackers do to (not claiming to be one of them). Building your personal brand is probably great for your career, but I want to write code, not win instagram to get a job. Like I probably could get more ROI by writing a blog post every five patches, but I barely have the energy to write patches, so I definitely don’t have the energy to blog and tweet about it.

This situation is definitely not what I would call good faith.

What if your family member on food stamps is deliberately suppressing their earning potential in order to do things they consider more fun than use the lucrative degree they have and generally have a more easygoing and enjoyable lifestyle than you (and would even without food stamps)? I have a family member like this, and watching them abuse the system has made me way less supportive of food stamps than I used to be. I’m still probably in favor, but only just barely.

Yeah people making this their Twitter motto do seem kinda silly to me. It’s just that I read a fair bit of ancient history, and the hard times narrative just seems straightforwardly true for most of human history, especially when there are wide open spaces with lots of grass nearby. It’s pretty lazy of me to be posting without reading why this isn’t supposed to be true for the Romans. I do think they don’t make as good an example as the Chinese, but if I remember my Gibbon it certainly seems to fit the pattern fairly well at least starting with the crisis of the 3rd century. I’ll have to read it in more depth though.

Basically, it just seems like opponents want to act like this never had any explanatory power, instead of taking the much more defensible line that it just doesn’t anymore.

Also, the Brishish empires collapse (and decolonization in general) seems like an example of this playing out in relatively modern times. Europeans empires retreated to their metropoles in the face of previously conquered and much poorer people who were just willing to suffer a lot more. Of this winds up being true in the modern era it will probably look like that, not Cambodia sudden fielding a 7th generation fighter and spanking the USAF.

It is very telling that all your leading examples are contemporary. An important part of this debate is that things changed when machine guns and airplanes were invented. For most of human history, the horse was the most powerful weapon on the plains, so people who loved by wandering around hanging out with horses and practicing their archery were a major menace to settled society. The modern era has not lasted as long as the Han dynasty, so we should give more time for the thesis to play out, but it seems pretty likely that the whole cycles of history thing was true for most of human history, but now it might not be.

I’ve heard the opposite. I can’t understand that video, but other sources I can find all claim half a million Ukrainian casualties not dead. This claims 1.2 million Russian casualties, which would make it a bit over 2 Russian casualties per Ukrainian. https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine (and the ratio of those casualties is higher because it’s hard to medivac people on the assault in this war.

There are of course lots of people willing to lie on both sides, so I could be wrong, but it doesn’t really make sense to me that Russians would be taking fewer casualties than the Ukrainians. This is not maneuver warfare. Attacking is brutal under these conditions, and the Russians keep doing it. The side that is deliberately using disposable troops having fewer deaths just doesn’t pass the smell test. Also, the fact that the Ukrainians have been holding the line so long just doesn’t seem plausible if they were taking such bad trades.

You should strongly consider the possibility that you have been consuming propaganda. I know that I have, because all of the information about the war is propaganda. Do a little first principal reasoning about the nature of the war to see what seems reasonable to decide which propaganda to put stock in.

Fun fact: I came across Brianna Wu on Twitter recently, who was also involved, I guess. Turns out she has always been a fairly likeable, nuanced, low-key trans woman.

Citation needed. She’s recently started playing the reasonable centrist, but she was absolutely a far left progressive extremist during gamer gate. She also still has yet to apologize to Jesse Single for lying about him or own up to her past bad behavior in any real way.