farright

The contempt stems from political correctness. Political correctness isn't some superficial outrage, it's the genuine belief that people who don't hold progressive beliefs are bad people who need to be punished. Trump can't convince progressives that his views are reasonable, but he can show that these views can't be repressed anymore.

When you said "I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person." I assumed you were including his political views.

I hadn't accounted for you just being a generally violent angry person.

The fact the so many progressive's response is to want to "punch the dude in the mouth" is exactly the kind of oppresive political correctness Trump voters are rebelling against.

These scenes probably garnered even more support for Trump's rallies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc

It's a number of things:

Going against political correctness by voicing controversial but popular views on immigration and Islam.

Populist economics in a recession after two terms of Obama.

And of course a yuuuge charisma.

Just my opinion, but Theranos looked like it wanted to combine (1) new technology to perform tests with less blood, and using pin pricks instead of blood from the vein and (2) business process improvements to streamline collection of blood and returning the results to the patient/doctor.

Whatever mix of these they were originally planning, they put a lot of emphasis in the press on the new technology. When this didn't pan out like they had hoped, they were not able to focus more on business process improvements, and in fact continued to emphasize their new tech and downplay the issues it faced (not really sure what these were, but overall there seemed to be a lack of hard evidence for the accuracy of the tests).

Is it just a coincidence that this comes right at the end of Obamas tenure?

I'm honestly not seeing an relation there.

The problem is that both follow a very non-uniform pattern and so it's hard to even define what a "correlation" would look like.

Like incompressible fluids, electricity is hard to reason about because we work in a limit that does not obey local causality.

The entire system must be solved simultaneously, and there is not a well defined "input" or "output". This can be seen from the fact that when we analyze a circuit we also include the model the power source and the load.

The combination of non-locality and complex boundary conditions makes it hard to apply ordinary intuition. We would like to say that the power source "does something" to the circuit but causality actually runs both ways. E.g. if we have a constant voltage source, then the circuit will determine how much current flows through the source. If we have a constant resistance load, then the load will determine how much power the circuit applies to it.

I've never used Julia but it reminds me of Go in that it attempts to replace Frankenstein systems that mix low level languages and high level languages/scripts, with a single modern, high level language with sufficient low level features and performance.

However, in order to do so, they have to give up the generality of either language, and focus on a particular domain (numerical computation and web servers respectively). And because of this, the language never develops a big enough ecosystem. Because of this, I think Python combined with native C libraries is ultimately the better way forward and will be more successful.

While we're on the subject of voter intimidation, there has been constant intimidation of Trump supporters throughout this whole campaign[0]. And at the same time, Democrats had a deliberate campaign to incite Trump supporters to violence[1] although this required provoking them by infiltrating their private events, while Trump supporters were harassed and abused on the streets.

Progressives have this insane argument that goes that violence and intimidation against Trump supporters is actually ok and not contrary to our deepest values, because it is done by private citizens and not the government.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUBpRexwiPg

[1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive...

I think this is where were supposed to invoke the intersectionality fairy.

Even though the question might imply that illegal immigrants should vote, Obama's answer certainly doesn't. I've seen the fully answer and his answer is along the lines of "Children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US and thus are citizens but have family who are illegal immigrants, have a greater reason to vote because they are representing their family and friends". I disagree with that logic but Obama certainly wasn't implying that non-citizens should vote.

Question: if other groups are so proud of rejecting people in tech, why should people in tech be expected to be welcoming towards outsiders. The way I see it, if you get to have your cool hip location for yourself, we should get to have our trillion dollar industry for ourselves.

The problem is people are taught from an early age that it's good to be an activist which means to focus on convincing people of a certain policy or viewpoint, instead of stating one's own reasoning. You'll often see "10 reasons to support X" which is unlikely to be intellectually honest since usually people will support X for 1 or 2 reasons, and might agree with certain arguments against X.

E.g. I support something like basic income, but I notice two contradictory arguments are used. The first says that basic income increases the incentive to work for the poor. The second says that basic income releases the poor from being forced into low pay work, and allows them to use their free time on positive things. These are contradictory, but you never see basic income advocates arguing this point among themselves.

Instead of encouraging people to be activists, we should be encouraging them to be intellectually honest. Very few issues are so important that they justify using marketing techniques that ultimately corrode the effectiveness of public debate.

As a woman in tech, I would feel uncomfortable using a format named after a famous rapist.

Politics of debt explains everything if you only care about the short term business cycle.

In terms of the business cycle, the author has a point. The bond mark has been deemed "too big too fail" and so creditors will always get bailed out. This is a problem.

But austerity is primarily aimed at the long term problem of living within one's means. This is independent of the business cycle. If your debt is increasing constantly, something has got to give. Even if you do default, you still need to figure out how to balance the budget in the future.

The problem is Chomsky claims that the "professional and scientific elite" are compromised by their role in society, and end up taking up self-serving political views that seek to preserve this role. So the natural question is what make Chomsky different.

Chomsky has interesting ideas whether you fully agree or not.

On language, human language has intricate rules that we can't fully explain in terms of the underlying neurobiology. But Chomsky's assertion that this implies some sort of underlying mechanism in the brain strikes me as excessively reductionist. Maybe neural networks are inherently capable of learning arbitrary rules, and the kinds of rules that comprise natural languages are constrained not by the brain, but by something else, e.g. maybe only some kinds of grammatical rules are stable over time as languages are subject to random drift.

On politics, Chomsky gives a very thorough critique of US foreign policy, but it is excessively materialist, i.e. it assumes the main driving force in politics is money and power, not ideology. Often this seems far fetched, e.g. US politicians are clearly very eager to please the Jewish lobby (e.g. AIPAC) but according to Chomsky it's the Jewish lobby that has been co-opted by the US in order to use Israel as a tool for US foreign policy. And yet in all the private discussions of all US presidents, all we hear is them being pushed to the right by the Jewish lobby. We never hear them saying "the Middle East is too stable, Jews and Arabs are starting to form solidarity and oppose US imperialism. Quick, pressure Israel to take a harder line".

And be confident! Interviewers love confidence.

You're assuming that startups are hiring people who would otherwise be top devs at big companies. I see no reason to think this.

Not all developers are equally good at their job, and if we see some getting paid effectively much more than others, the most natural explanation is that the higher paid ones are better developers. Otherwise, why would that startup employees take the deal?

Same goes for throwing around terms like "ignorance". You need to make an actual argument. Also not a throwaway, I'm here to stay. And please stop with the rude comments[0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bingo. Just like with the white working class, it's not particularly helpful to tell people "the system will never give you a break" if that isn't actually true.

For every fashionable article on how privilege perpetuates itself (which it does, to some extent) there is an unfashionable article on the financial payoff to college education (spoiler, it's huge).

You're completely missing my point. Did you read the whole post or just the first sentence? My point was that people shouldn't be punished for saying reasonable things, but currently they are.

FTL is a big problem for hard sci fi. What we know about the physical world is amazing and beautiful, and it's hard to see novels butcher it by adding in FTL. On the other hand, without FTL the theme of every novel becomes "I travelled to another star and now everyone I know is dead", or the light-speed limit otherwise ends up dominating the plot and squeezing out everything else.

The polls show that the tactic of defining things you disagree with to be "racism, mysoginy, and general hate speech" isn't working.

The fact that people would face "consequeces" for making these political statements is exactly why Trump has been so popular.

People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system.

I don't think Trump phased it very well but I do think that illegal immigration is a net negative for the US, and it wouldn't' surprise me if illegal immigrants were disproportionately criminal. What's undeniable is that illegal immigration is connected with new patterns of organized crime, even if the overall crime rate is similar.