Well, it's a weird site. Most of my interactions are through the /active page or specific search terms. When I started to do that in about 2021 it certainly made it a lot easier to find what I as curious about.
Unfortunately, what I wanted to know also changed, in that I now use the site to keep tabs on the thoughts of folks are or who fund and work for hard-right technocrats.
There are, of course, many other folks on the site.
At the same time, the US techno-fascists both have an outsized influence on our lives and it's much harder to find their voices in other places: folks who, for instance, think Peter Thiel is of course quite sane and probably not trying to figure out a way to kill vast chunks of us off (and that it would be a reasonable thing if he were).
Indeed you read that backwards. He's saying that Thiel supporters and apologists can be found on HN more easily than on other sites. I'm not sure what to make of that claim though - he doesn't (or rather the events related to his companies that make it to the front page don't) seem very popular around here to me.
I think they are saying they want to track the ideas of people who support techno-fascists like Thiel and who don't think that ideology is insane, and that it can be difficult to find them online
It's not a qualification, it's a competition. It's not like there is a minimum bar to meet and everyone who meets it gets to go in. It's like "We have 10 seats, so we take the 10 best people who apply". Your qualification is that you have to be one of the 10 best people, however good they are.
I don't think what I said is tautological, so let me rephrase.
I think it's a mistake to leave a field early solely because there are fewer jobs than people with the relevant degree. Not all jobs are created equal, and not all degree-holders are equally competitive for all jobs. Some positions have a hiring bar far above having a qualifying degree. It also helps to realize that programs graduate C and D students all the time.
So it can both be true that there aren't enough jobs for everyone with the degree, and also that the market is not saturated with qualified candidates for particular jobs.
> Isn't the point that we might think that getting a terminal degree would qualify a person for some kind of job in their field?
As you climb the ladder, competition gets fiercer. At the terminal-degree level, having the degree is the baseline expectation. Not having it may be enough to disqualify you, but having it is not enough to make you competitive, because your peers also have terminal degrees. A terminal degree may qualify you in the credentialing sense, but it does not guarantee that you meet the hiring bar for a particular position, or that there is sufficient demand for your specialization at the wages, locations, and conditions you want.
its a different relationship entirely. you're hiring someone to mentor grad students, get grants, and teach. and while you aren't given tenure right away, that's certainly the goal, which can be a multi-decade commitment. everyone is trying to raise the bar with their program, and a couple 'meh' hires can really change that trajectory for quite a while. there are only like 20 faculty in your department, its not like development a giant tech co where there are tens of thousands and they are constantly moving in and out - each of these hires has a dramatic impact on your culture.
so yes, it absolutely makes sense to leave slots empty if you don't find candidates that you're excited about.
It’s almost like a corollary to the Douglas Adam’s principle referred to in the article - if there’s a theory about social behavior formulated before you’re born, it’s fair game to reformulate it.
As much as I enjoy DA, Kuhn takes it a little further- it's almost like folks live in completely different worlds because the worlds are made up of fundamentally different basic parts...
I mean, they aren't there to police the hyper-wealthy, so I'm not sure why you'd expect them to go after those folks... that's like expecting the DEA to go after the CIA.
To these folks the constitution is just paper. Just like their bible, the words mean whatever they say they mean.
Politically, I am an anarchist, so I already believed that they operate with disdain for the folks they govern- I look at how they treat the natives where I live in the rural West and it's obvious, and I have never believed that their racism would save me from that treatment. So to me there's nothing new here except the aesthetics of how they implement control over populations of people and the depth of their faith in surveillance technolgy.
Pragmatically, though, it's wild to watch them try and burn that paper.
When they stop pretending to care about the rule of law (a pretense they have undone a little each day of my adult life, and I am almost 50), they undermine the legitimacy of their government in the eyes of the general population.
These folks (the folks in the political mainstream of US political ideology, the ones with hands on the levers of capital and US force) are so far up their own asses high on literal amphetamines and social media that they thought they could control Minneapolis with 3k troops or take the Persian gulf by sniping some old and dying priest.
They have not been in touch with reality for a long time, insulated from it by their massive wealth.
Fine with me; I've never had enough folks on my side to think about pushing back so my life has been and will be spent caring for my local folks and watching the internal contradictions that the Marxists understand so well pull these systems down on themselves.
I'm not under any illusions that I personally will survive the fire they are lighting or, that this won't bring about human suffering on a scale that is impossible to comprehend. But I don't have any power over that and my people don't have any power over that outcome; there is little to be gained in fighting the heat-death of the sun, any more than telling the Democrat folks that running Harris would doubtlessly lead to the election of Trump or complaining that some day I'm going to die.
But it is wild to watch them burn this house down in such short order.
Anyhow, to answer your question: no. The constitution is whatever they say it is and always has been.
While there is no worls in which I support DJT, I don't think that his supporters and (more importantly) his material situation care about anything the guy actually does.
I could look at the "grab them by the pussy" thing and be disgusted but still think that there's something even worse that could come out which might discredit the guy.
But if the Epstein connections and his massive incompetence and massive corruption can't do anything, I can't see what would.
This is where I'm at. It's a cult and trumps believers will follow him to the kool aid. There's already quite a bit of proof that Trump had a relationship with Epstein and it hasn't made much of a difference.
That was known before he ran in 2016, it didn't matter. Trump admitted that his wealth and celebrity made it easy to sexually assault women on tape and it only made him more popular to his base. And plenty of damaging images and far more direct links to pedophilia have come from the Epstein file releases since, despite the administration's best efforts. Where can you go after the allegation that Donald Trump punched an underage girl in the head after she bit his dick goes public and goes nowhere?
Honestly I don't think more pictures and more video is going to move the needle. Either you already accept that Donald Trump is very likely a pedophile based on the preponderance of evidence or you don't care. No one is going to be Pikachu face shocked by anything anyone could reveal at this point.
It might have started that way (I dunno) but these days it feels like just Trump being senile and incapable of admitting he made a mistake.
After all, MAGA supports Trump no matter what. ICE murdered two US citizens already. Trump could shoot a baby in Times Square and I don't think it will ever go below 30%.
But once you raise gas prices, that affects everyone's living cost. I don't think whatever video Epstein made could ever match that. (And these days MAGA will wave it away with "guh it's clearly AI, you libtards." You can't do that at gas station.)
Everyone already knows that Trump himself was a pedophile. Yet he's still president, and no one's seriously challenging him on this. When he said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters", for once I believed him. His utter shamelessness gives him total immunity over any puny attempt at blackmail.
Is it really harder to believe that support from Israel is more complex than simple blackmail? There are a lot of pro-Israel people in and around power, Trump is far from alone on this. The Military Industrial Complex, Oligarchs, Corporations, they all win from the wars waged by Israel and the US in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, what I wanted to know also changed, in that I now use the site to keep tabs on the thoughts of folks are or who fund and work for hard-right technocrats.
There are, of course, many other folks on the site.
At the same time, the US techno-fascists both have an outsized influence on our lives and it's much harder to find their voices in other places: folks who, for instance, think Peter Thiel is of course quite sane and probably not trying to figure out a way to kill vast chunks of us off (and that it would be a reasonable thing if he were).
reply