numbers_guy

Isn't manufacturing mostly a red herring? Sure some select people who are currently in Washington might care about it from a geopolitical angle, but the electorate is not lamenting the lack of manufacturing jobs, but rather their decreased share of the proceeds of the no.1 national economy in the world. Even if you bring all manufacturing back, I doubt those same people will be happy working in those factories.

The free market is also full of corruption. It's called wage theft. It's very prevalent and especially in such situations where the workers are so vulnerable.

And please refrain from using catch-all phrases like "free market" and "communist". That's the mark of a very stupid person.

I am not trying to demonize any demographic. Everyone tries to cheat the system especially when you have a system that is easy to game. Yes, the most severe corruption is at the very top. Doesn't mean we should ignore other problems.

When you create perverse incentives you attract systematic cheaters. We literally conducted this experiment in Germany. Now the government is trying to roll out a restricted benefits card instead of giving out cash, because people come from overseas just to get on the benefits system and send the cash back home.

Let's not confuse demographics. There is a struggling working class who are employed but barely getting by. Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work, probably getting by on some subsistence from government security programs like disability and the dole.

We keep going in circles on this. Give them cash and suddenly you have lots of people cheating the system to get the cash, like all the beggar gangs that hangout outside supermarkets. Do means testing and you build a whole wasteful bureaucracy that costs 2x as the actual cash given to the people in need.

IMHO, just setup a public day labour program. One day of honest work for one day's worth of wages. Show up in the morning, don a uniform and do your assigned task, no questions asked.

It's very hard to moderate an online forum that allows political content without succumbing to your own political bias. I don't like the trolls on X, but if X started moderating against hateful content, it would just end up censoring news and opinions like they used to do beforehand. There is just no way around that. I am not going to name examples because it would start a flame war, but there are enough recent examples.

Also, maybe I'm from a different generation, but the trolls can be very easily ignored. What do I care is some no name account is posting some stupid content somewhere on X? I already know which people I want to follow. The rest I don't care about.

I don't let the algorithm dictate who I follow. I pretty much know the big names in all the areas that I want to keep up to date with. And for every big name I know their main rivals, so I can have a complete picture. It's that simple. If Bluesky manages to attract the same diversity of opinions I might start using it.

It's a bigger echo chamber than X. What's the point? I go online to try to get a general idea of the landscape of views and opinions.

I think a general problem with the current political landscape right now is that people literally cannot tolerate reading something they disagree with, because they convinced themselves that the other side is so morally flawed, they can just immediately write them off without further consideration.

But irrespective of that, how are you supposed to understand what is going on if you only read content by people who think the same way you do?

The situation in 2024 is much more confusing. Because it seems to me that the political side that styles itself to be against the far-right, is also very much in favour of curtailing free speech and reigning in internet platforms where people share news and political opinions. So who is burning the books? Everyone? I'm so confused.

> The only way someone could be an incel is if they got thrown in prison and have no way to actually meet women, or other examples like this

Like spending their formative years in nerd/tech bubbles with no girls around, you mean?

I agree that technically very few people are "involuntarily" celibate, but one does not have to strain hard to imagine a situation where somebody might find it very hard to find a compatible partner.

You have a pretty shallow understanding of human psychology. Are you autistic? Nothing wrong with that, but you should be aware that things out there are a bit more complex and nuanced than you seem to grasp.

Have to disagree. In particular with you subscribing him a dating strategy that works for you. Different strategies work for different people.

Agree with the first paragraph. The second paragraph does not follow at all. Traits that are no successful today might be very well received 12,000 years ago.

For example people with ADHD would probably be better hunter-gatherers than they are programmers. Neuroticism might be useful if you live in constant life-threatening situations.

1. Take a look around you. If there are no women in the room, you're in the wrong room. Location matters.

2. Take a look around you. Feel the vibe. If you are not vibing with the people in the room, you're in the wrong room. How you come across to others matters. You don't want to be the loser in the room.

If you do 1. and 2. then it's just a matter of trying and failing until someone sticks around.

3. As a man you will always have to lead. That's expected of men. You have to ask her out. You have to advance the relationship forward.

4. Once you get a girl interested, threat her well, but don't put her on a pedestal. She wants to look up to you, not the other way round.

...things I wish I realized a long time ago

Puzzle? I think he is a normal man with emotions and a moral compass of some kind. Many immoral people would STFU and tacitly support the status quo, but I think Musk is better that that, despite the hate that he gets.

Elon Musk on Lex Fridman, very soon after the latest violence started, made comments that appeared pro-Palestine, something along the lines of "Israel should safeguard Palestinian civilians and draw them away from Hamas with kindness." Soon after, they tried cancelling him, there was the infamous "go fuck yourselves" during that interview, and he visited Israel.

Hard to say where he stands and who is pulling the strings, but it's interesting to follow.

The typical ASML employee will have done a Ph.D in Applied Physics or Applied Mathematics and gone straight into a lifelong career with this one company. It is actually very different from the typical SWE in SV. Same applies for its partners Zeiss and Trumpf.

Thanks. Looked into it, but they don't seem to be hiring MLEs/Researchers. Also it seems to be a very generic, "we give you the AI" business without a clear product or service.

Are there any notable LLM efforts in German speaking Europe?

And I am here silently wondering whether I'm an introvert who occasionally really loves the right company, or whether I'm an extrovert who is constantly starved of the right kind of social interaction. I also cannot relate to this whole socializing being exhausting business, but that is maybe because I never force myself in social situations where I am not enjoying myself.

> a lot of introverts socialize a lot online

Are you sure we are introverts and not just people lacking enough IRL social outlets, or people suffering from social anxieties. Why would an introvert go online to socialize with complete strangers?

How does it make logical sense? People are not numbers. What right do you, or anyone else, have to decide who shall live and who shall die? Reducing people to numbers is a logical fallacy in itself.

Culture and attitude are a billion times more important than city planning when it comes to happy communities. Anyone who has traveled can tell you this. According to all these stupid blog articles from Americans, I have lived in 7 different heavens, but the reality I experienced was markedly different.

Just because people live densely packed together does not mean that they will decide to strike up a conversation and get to know each other. It does not mean that there will be five people lending a hand when you need help. Quite the opposite. Americans take for granted their culture, which in these aspects is better than what you will find in many European cities.

Actually thinking about it, packing people densely together might even foster a culture that is more insular, cold and hostile than what the typical American is accustomed to.

Your comment contains no substance. You are just pushing a conspiracy theory.

Hydrogen based fuels make sense on multiple fronts: long term storage (batteries cannot do this), scale (adding more tanks is cheaper than whole battery packs) and energy/power densities are still above what the best batteries can provide.

It's mostly my fellow Germans, being honest.

Yes, I'm wondering. I thought HN was a startup forum.

Amazing how much value is skimmed off knowledge workers. It always puzzles me why more people don't setup their own shop.

It's a U-curve as well. Very poor people have low standards when it comes to raising children and less qualms about raising families on welfare with limited opportunities. Once people become educated and middle class but still poor, they have higher aspirations for their children and are less prone to have children if they know they won't be able to provide an adequate standard of living. Rich people have typically an above average number of children. I was mostly talking about the middle class, the ones who are educated but still poor.

Somebody should superimpose the U-curve with the fertility rate graph. It might be that women employment picked up again when women gave up on having children/families. If you live in a 1st world country and you're too poor to afford to have a family (and by this I mean to be able to raise children with a certain standard of living) you might as well have a career... just to have some semblance of meaning in life.

World impact is not how Nobels are won. If that was the case Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg and others would all have multiple ones.

I honestly do not see this paper as being in the same magnitude of brilliance as a typical Nobel would be. Not to mention that it barely counts as science (actually it probably does not). Don't get me wrong. It is a huge achievement for both the machine learning research field and for humanity as a whole, but putting along the achievements of Nobel physicists and such feels wrong.