Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#191

Post by baytrailcat »

natrius wrote: post #160
morgante wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but the priors on a random Internet commentator insisting that the only way to understand his farfetched, radical theory is to watch hours of videos are not very positive. It would be helpful if you could provide a rational and concise summary here. I'd genuinely like to learn more.

Short answer: globalization hurts the developed world in the absence of real technological breakthroughs (energy too cheap to meter, something we use a lot gets can now be made for half the price, etc.). A richer world just means more competition for scarce things. The rational policy for a self-interested superpower might be to ease up on globalization.

Thanks. That somewhat makes sense, I think. Kind of ironic though. Most of the underdeveloped world didn't want globalization to begin with!

Re: undefined

#192

Post by morgante »

ubernostrum wrote: post #189
morgante wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't know about Brendan Eich. That makes me angry. It makes me angry too, but also raises (for me) some interesting political questions around what level of disagreement is "too far." I would never fire someone for being a Republican and personally/privately opposing gay marriage. But I would also immediately fire someone if they were a Nazi. So where is the line if what's an acceptable level of tolerance (and…

So consider Proposition 8. This was a ballot measure whose sole purpose was to enshrine in law the idea that "this group of people over here aren't legally equal to everyone else". Privately believing someone has done something wrong, or belongs to a bad group, is one thing. Trying to enshrine that belief in law and disenfranchise the targeted person or group is quite another thing, and if you honestly are unable to…

> Privately believing someone has done something wrong, or belongs to a bad group, is one thing.

Did I say they were the same thing? I absolutely think that "let's make gay marriage illegal" is categorically worse than "I don't like gay marriage."

As bad a Prop 8 was, the policies Trump advocates are 1,000 times worse, yet I don't see anyone working to boycott or quit his companies.

Re: undefined

#193

Post by kybernetikos »

threeseed wrote: post #86
rconti wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On matters of opinion, ABSOLUTELY. On matters of polling, absolutely false. Even Brexit was predicted by the polls, it just didn't happen until a week before the vote. (It's worth noting, of course, the same could happen here. And that's probably what Thiel is counting on).

Exactly there is a big myth going around that polls never predicted Brexit when in fact they absolutely did. People just didn't want to believe them. Polls are objective not subjective.

Can you provide some links about the Brexit polls? I was following the betting markets and the prediction markets and they were dramatically wrong, even the day of the vote.

Re: undefined

#194

Post by morgante »

rodgerd wrote: post #171
morgante wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then there's Palantir. That's a fair point. Palantir is very well-positioned to be the IBM of Trumpism.

Am I meant to infer "do for Trump what IBM did for Hitler" from that?

Yes, though Trump is obviously not a carbon copy clone of Hitler.

Re: undefined

#195

Post by [deleted] »

baytrailcat wrote: post #191
natrius wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short answer: globalization hurts the developed world in the absence of real technological breakthroughs (energy too cheap to meter, something we use a lot gets can now be made for half the price, etc.). A richer world just means more competition for scarce things. The rational policy for a self-interested superpower might be to ease up on globalization.

Thanks. That somewhat makes sense, I think. Kind of ironic though. Most of the underdeveloped world didn't want globalization to begin with!

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#196

Post by fulafel »

finance-geek wrote: post #172
fulafel wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would mean that countries with larger populations would have higher unemployment rates, but that is not the case.

It would mean that any poor country could simply become wealthy by allowing unlimited immigration...Most poor countries are nicer relative to some worse-off country, so certainly there would not be a shortage of immigrants wanting to migrate.

I think the null hypothesis has to be that there is no correlation between population size and employment.

Re: undefined

#197

Post by kybernetikos »

easyd wrote: post #144

Everyone seems to think it's about maximizing his ROI or, less cynical, about economics. But here's a quote from Thiel's speech at the republican convention: "Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don't need to see Hillary Clinton's deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it's a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald…

George W Bush came to power claiming that it was time to stop being the worlds police and to rebuild the country instead.

Re: undefined

#198

Post by chroem- »

adjkant wrote: post #182
Radim wrote: post #170

Everything has to be such a spectacle, so black-and-white and binary in the US. The forum discussions, here and elsewhere, give outside observers this impression: |=============================X=| Candidate X: some minor flaws, but overall a great option |=X=============================| Candidate Y: the new Hitler, world falls apart if elected For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "gr…

1. To answer your question, yes. 2. Putting Trump and Clinton on the same level simply isn't accurate. I would revise this: |============================X==| amazing candidate |================X==============| normally acceptable candidate |============X==================| Clinton |==X============================| Trump Clinton is certainly worse than most candidates historically, but her corruption and scandals are…

Clinton has been exposed in plain daylight as having done things that would have made Richard Nixon blush. It's so bad that her campaign has been forced to hire a crew of dedicated astroturfers to cover for her, and they have no scruples over doing this either. How does that make her better than Trump?

Re: undefined

#199

Post by notatoad »

threeseed wrote: post #86
rconti wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On matters of opinion, ABSOLUTELY. On matters of polling, absolutely false. Even Brexit was predicted by the polls, it just didn't happen until a week before the vote. (It's worth noting, of course, the same could happen here. And that's probably what Thiel is counting on).

Exactly there is a big myth going around that polls never predicted Brexit when in fact they absolutely did. People just didn't want to believe them. Polls are objective not subjective.

>Polls are objective not subjective.

I get what you're trying to say, and most polling seems to be pretty objective, but you can absolutely do subjective polling. You just have to target the right demo and you can make any poll say anything you want.

Re: undefined

#200

Post by AvenueIngres »

daveguy wrote: post #134
bassman9000 wrote: post #46

Interesting to see that many comments on money buying influence. Yet no one seems to consider the possibility that the most pro-establishment candidate, with a proven track of money-for-favors trafficking is, in Thiel's opinion, a worse outcome.

I wasn't aware either had a proven record of money for favors. Except maybe Trump's donation in Florida.

You are joking? The Clinton Foundation has left an overwhelming trail of evidence that points to their wrong doings, whether it is in Haiti, at the WHO or through the pay-to-play scheme and deals they have with petro-monarchies like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The latest Wikileaks dump shows that Bill Clinton received a million dollar "birthday gift" through the Clinton Foundation directly from Qatar. At the very moment it was clear to the State Dept. that the governments (not private individuals or royal family members - this is a game changer) of SA and Qatar were actively funding ISIS, sunni militias and mercenary groups to destabilise Syria and Iraq.

We could talk about Haiti, the gold contracts landed to HRC's brother and the obvious collusion and conflict of interests she was part of during her time as a Secretary of State.

Post reply on HN