maxehmookau

> the real problem that got Trump in office was normalcy bias. what we're dealing with is so bad that if you tell people who don't already know, they assume you're exaggerating.

This is understated IMO. In almost every other democracy in the world, 1% of the mess that comes out of Trump's mouth would deem him utterly unelectable on account of how crazy he sounds. The US seems to lap it up though.

> I have always thought that it would be interesting to see an "Ordinary people party" that focuses on the silent majority

There is no silent majority. Turnout was >60% in 2020, so by that measure there's a silent minority at best.

This is probably partially cultural. My experience is with the UK admittedly.

Right-wing demagogues have been playing this game for years. Imagine being the party of billionaires and pointing to the other side and shouting "elites!"

I've never understood it, but it's an impressive party trick.

The rightward shift in the tech sector seems to only apply to executives. ICs seem to be as lefty as they always have been.

How is it not relevant? The US election has wide-reaching effects for technology workers across the US and the world.

> As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision

CEOs need to not say this, unless they're quitting too.

It’s not a conspiracy theory, at least not in the UK.

Conservatives massively cut funding to public services, private insurance for healthcare also increased in that time and private premiums have also increased.

The UK's problem is that it wants universal healthcare paid for by general taxation, and free at the point of use. However, the previous government wanted that whilst also reducing public expenditure. You can't have both.

It totally can be done, but it's expensive. I, personally, hope to see taxes rise to pay for this system to work as it should.

Private healthcare is already digging in its claws in the UK due to the fall in availability of state-provided care and (from my experience) it's not a good experience; and it's still expensive!

The UK's state provided system is pretty good, but it runs too much on good will right now.

That's quite a big existential crisis for so early on a Tuesday. Cool as heck though.

> We need to teach our students that the employment they take doesn't exist in a vacuum.

I think this is important, especially in tech. Our contributions often change the world, even in little ways, but this compounds.

I love my Kagi account, and will continue to pay. It is too US-centric, something I've been asked to report in HN comments (I have), and something that continues to be a problem.

But as with all of these things, I'm paying to no longer be the product. That's the value for me, and so "it not working exactly as I expect 100% of the time" is actually a small price worth paying.

Generally speaking, I find the quality of results usually on a par with Google.

How many folks who use automated tools to apply for hundreds/thousands of jobs are actually successful?

I've met a handful of folks who claim to have applied for thousands of jobs, and none of them are actually successful in finding employment.

Even if this were a perfect product, I wouldn't ever buy something like this from Meta because the business model is still "learn everything about you and sell you ads".

Except now, it's on my face, seeing and hearing everything I'm seeing and hearing. That's a hard no, and always would be in my home and in my life.

Does anybody in the UK ever use the free wifi at stations? It never works anyway.

> Again many would argue that was actually the start of the decline which we are feeling the pain of now with things like a terrible and fractured rail service and not enough housing.

I agree, this is pretty wild and made me immediately look up who was behind this. Conservative think-tanks gotta conservative think-tank.

The fact that he honestly believes Facebook has any sort of content standard is hilarious anyway.

The idea that airlines can pressure captains in to doing _anything_ is terrifying and should be utterly outlawed.

Exactly. And the old story of "oh well the rich will take their money elsewhere" won't work. They need to stay in the US, that's the whole point.

Maybe there will be a point where it works out cheaper to fly to another country to fuel up though. I'm sure some tax policy folks could figure this out better than I.

Tax the ~~rich~~ ultra-wealthy, and their thoughtless damage to our environment. It's about as close to a victimless tax-rise as could ever exist.

I'm a huge advocate of full-time remote working, but those like me who feel it is the future of work need to stop being so dogmatic about how communication should happen.

I don't really like posts like this. Sure, it's a great idea in a remote context to write down how you like to communicate, and how you like to be communicated with at work. (You should do it, it's great!)

However, not everybody will agree with you and part of being a good employee on a large, distributed, team is understanding and working with other people's communication styles.

Even if you hate it.

Taxes on jet fuel for private usage should be 3x higher too.

It's not real money to these folks; I doubt he'd even notice.

The staff member clearly did not have a fair choice. His terms of employment were unilaterally changed in a way deemed to be illegal in Ireland. "Be more hardcore" is not a sensible description of a working environment to anyone but the most hardened of Musk apologists.

The law stood up for the employee in this case, as it should.

Ireland's tax regime is notoriously kind to tech companies, so I doubt they'll go anywhere.

Good. The richest man in the world doesn't get to be above the law on account of being rich.

If you own a company, that comes with responsibility and if you shirk those responsibilities the law will come for you; as it should.

I've been looking for something like this for a while :) Looking forward to trying it out!

So the idea of "influencers" was that consumers felt closer to companies via the medium of "people like us" who can "influence" us.

Doesn't making a computer do that completely remove the value from it?

Alright, I'll qualify that with "journalists don't do this as often" as they did in 2006.

I like that articles like this in 2006 referred to Microsoft as "Redmond" - like Microsoft was an entirely country in its own right. "Washington said" when referring to the US government is common, but I don't think you see "Cupertino said" when referring to Apple these days.

I agree. Which is why its such a shame the current Microsoft era is hacking down the trees to the tune of thousands of layoffs.

I don't think that's what the author is saying. I think they're saying that over-use of tech from a very young age is damaging in later life and that the data from Gen Z is beginning to paint that picture.

> But great tools don’t automatically make great toys, and I want my kids to learn the difference.

Quote of the century. I couldn't agree more.

As someone who makes a living from tech, I want it less and less in my life in my spare time. That doesn't mean it's not important, useful and gives us boundless opportunities.