cle

> the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group

Trumpism has a very clear culture, using that definition.

But it seems like you're not using that definition. Perhaps you're using the second one in Merriam-Webster?

> enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training

People self-identifying as this type of "cultured" is just another example of the smugness I'm complaining about. There's also not much to argue about here, there's no way to falsify such a claim, it's just self-annointed "enlightenment and excellence". Some folks on Bluesky define "enlightenment and excellence" in ways that align with their attributes, some folks on X/Twitter define it differently to align with theirs. And they're all smug about it.

If the feedback is irrelevant, you'll waste the least amount of time by not giving it at all. (I think that's slightly different from your scenario though, where you don't actually know if it's irrelevant.)

> If your superiors are unable to process no-fluff information, regardless of whether it's feedback or updates, they have no business lording over anyone and will sink whatever function they have oversight of.

You're assuming that the subordinate's feedback is sufficiently important to the business. It might not be. It might also not be important to the business if subordinates leave b/c their feedback is disregarded. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where a leader could still succeed while not giving a crap about subordinate feedback. It depends on the goals and the dynamics of the business, the leader's experience, market conditions, labor environments, etc.

> The reason you don't fluff feedback, or any information for that matter to your superiors, is described in basically every handbook on highly effective communication in organizations.

You can argue in your exit interview that you were just following handbooks.

I'd bet that a large amount of them are not "compliant, meek little sheep", but are balancing risk-taking with providing for their families. Does that make them cowards?

The X crowd just swept the entire US federal government in the elections. I think it's going to stay pretty culturally significant.

Also this smugness is why I dislike most discourse on X/Twitter and Bluesky. They're variations of the same thing and I dislike them both b/c of it.

It's spilling over into HN unfortunately.

So what? Even if it isn't some well-reasoned whitepaper, there's nothing wrong with venting a little. It's possible (desirable, even) to be sympathetic towards people who haven't written a thesis defending themselves. Often those are the people who deserve sympathy the most.

(I also disagree that the author doesn't give good arguments, sure it doesn't mention the exact word "lies" but a good chunk of the article is in the same embedding space cluster.)

I'd bet that most people agree with you, which is why the people who actually do it get a lot of attention--from the other folks who want to, but can't. This particular topic notwithstanding, employers have so much leverage that it's risky to stick your neck out but I'm thankful there are people who do it.

Will uv even be around in 4+ years? No idea.

Requiring a huge time investment like that will filter out a lot of the non-desperate folks…probably exactly the folks they don’t want to filter out!

Also do they really want to set the tone that “I expect you to intuit what I want and I won’t tell you directly”? Sounds like an awful place to work, right out of the gate.

Of course it does, your resume is a critical part of selling your skills & services to employers. Want to close faster and for more $$$? Demonstrate your value prop in the terms they know and care about.

There's a good chance you're right, but I think there's also a chance that things could get worse at some point (with some hand-wavy definition of "a while").

Currently the state-of-the-art is propped up with speculative investments, if those speculations turn out to be wrong enough, or social/economic changes force the capital to get allocated somewhere else, then there could be a significant period of time where access to it goes away for most of us.

We can already see small examples of this from the major model providers. They launch a mind-blowing model, get great benchmarks and press, and then either throttle access or diminish quality to control costs / resources (like Claude Sonnet 3.5 pretty quickly shifted to short, terse responses). Access to SOTA is very resource-constrained and there are a lot of scenarios I can imagine where that could get worse, not better.

Even "Today, the state of the art in is the worst it will ever be" in cryptography isn't always true, like post-spectre/meltdown. You could argue that security improved but perf definitely did not.

> that add zero value to the intended purpose

Well...to your intended purpose. They're often better aligned with the purpose of keeping the business running.

The hard part is not doing it, it's getting people to agree. I highly doubt people will agree to do that, because a large portion of people don't agree with "our village is now Earth".

No it didn't the list is too long...I had originally included Australia in the GS but moved it to the GN as per that wiki page. Here's the list I ended up with: https://pastebin.com/f50S0TNa. (Some minor errors still in there, like North Korea and Taiwan are incorrectly labeled.)

Of course my "analysis" is incomplete, I wasn't trying to do a complete analysis, just get an idea for where all the carbon emissions come from. Apparently ~2/3 comes from the Global South (currently). Forecasting models don't have normative parameters.

I know? I am using that page as a reference.

I'd maybe agree, not sure. I'm mostly interested in figuring out what the "activist demands" are, specifically. On the surface using these common definitions, they seem a bit extreme.

Aren't China and India in the Global South? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South

> Activists are calling for the Global North to provide at least 5 trillion U.S. dollars annually in public finance to the Global South as a down payment on their climate debt to those least responsible for climate change but most affected by it.

Huh? I'm pretty sure the Global South produces significantly more carbon emissions than the Global North. Like double. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong?)

From a quick Jupyter CSV excursion:

    Region
    North    13307.26
    South    24518.75
    Name: Emissions, dtype: float64

(based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...)

(edit: updated, miscategorized Australia)

I agree that it’s a positive development. Working together/recognizing our shared fate isn’t mutually exclusive with progress (it’s generally a prerequisite!).

Well the second paragraph of the article lays out what the author thinks the "good reasons" are.

I don't even know if I agree or disagree with those as "good reasons". But also, we obviously don't all agree on them. Like, at all.

Of course they are, nobody's disputing that.

I think I agree with you. Most people are not really arguing on those terms though.

> The USA has lost its appetite for these mega projects, sadly.

Looking around at this thread, it's easy to see why. People value ecological conservatism over economic progress.

Of course, the type of economic progress we've had over the last few decades has been a mixed bag, due to structural deficiencies. But I don't agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The general cynicism and negativity makes me really sad. Esp for a community of builders and problem solvers.

> Travel to China, India, parts of the Middle East, other parts of Asia, and realize just how foul the air there is to breathe. That's what you want for the US?

I'll go out on a limb and predict that their answer to that would be "no". I don't think you're assuming good faith here.

Humans altering the landscape enables civilization. Personally I'm more biased towards that than ecological conservatism.

We should maintain a balance of course. I suppose the real problem here is agreeing on what "balance" means.

It could also be a symptom of something else, like I’ve seen this happen when someone goes overboard on unit tests and they become so burdensome that other engineers just want to get it out of the way. They may not consciously realize it, but subconsciously they know that it’s BS and so they don’t mind BS names to just move on with actual productive work.

Not saying it’s always the case, but it could be. Higher standards are not always better, they have diminishing returns.

Nice!

Isn't this what the Arrow IPC File format does too? Is there something unique about this?

It's even worse than that, first Google will bug you to use Chrome, then bug you to login, then after your search the browser will pop up "Google would like to use your current location". And then the first half-page of results are ads. And half of the actual results are AI slop and a helpful AI summary of the slop. And that's before you even get to the page.