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

Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 190 posts

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#121

Post by Daishiman »

jdpedrie wrote: post #88
PhaseLockk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Two seconds of Googling reveals your bullshit. All of these people announced support for same-sex marriage after being elected, or after leaving public service. It seems unlikely that the republican party would run a new candidate that included support of gay marriage as part of their platform. Maybe I'm wrong though.

You do realize a Republican President was just elected who supported gay marriage, right? It wasn't a show stopper for him. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread.

Who made pretty much no mention of it and who's got some serious Christian fundamentalists on its team?

Personally having a position is different from putting it in your political agenda.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#122

Post by drzaiusapelord »

ocschwar wrote: post #91
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardcore libertarianism is the exception, not the norm in tech. Tech tends to float in big cities and as such is naturally liberal. A lot of the successes of early tech startups is in part due to liberal hiring policies welcoming women, gays, and minorities who otherwise had a hard time working or getting hired at the old conservative shops like IBM. Its the weirdos who gave us the Apple // and the Mac. Not the butto…

> Hardcore libertarianism is the exception, not the norm in tech. Tech tends to float in big cities and as such is naturally liberal. Wow, do I see a generation gap here. Close your eyes and picture the nation in 1990. As you pointed out, tech tends to float in and around big cities. But we're in 1990. The cities are at rock bottom. Crime all over. Poverty. Horrendous disfunction. Anyone living in the cities back the…

> The cities are at rock bottom. Crime all over. Poverty. Horrendous disfunction.

You should read less Trump tweets and more facts. The GDP, salaries, etc in big cities is very impressive. There's a reason the tech innovations and big startups don't come from nowhere Wyoming and instead come from urban centers.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#123

Post by virmundi »

tyleraldrich wrote: post #115
virmundi wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There fear is unfounded. None of them have been attacked, accidentally shot or harmed by guns directly. Their fear goes so far as to them becoming hostile at the thought of them or myself carrying. They don't want anyone own this tool. Guns, like all other power tools, should be respected. I carry daily. I respect the responsibility I bring on myself in doing so. I respect what the tool can do. Many weekend I use 1-5…

Guns should be respected, and thank you for respecting yours. Now, can you guarantee that every person I pass on the street respects their gun as much as you do, and they won't misuse this "power tool" they have the right to own? If you cannot guarantee that, I don't think you can say anybodies fear is unfounded. What you just said is like saying a fear of airplanes is unfounded because all pilots respect their aircr…

I can't guarantee you that. I can't promise every person you pass on the street won't kill you by stabbing you in the eye with a pencil. I can't promise that no one will throw you into an oncoming bus.

As to fear about planes or fear in general, the foundation of fear, especially such that motivates policy, should be based on odds. I am terrified when I fly. I still fly. I know, deep down, that I have a higher chance of dying by driving. The fear is real in an abstract sense: this could kill me. It is not something that I should put much emotional/physical response in because it is so unlikely as to not be a problem. To put it another way, I should not let my fear of flying affect my personal travel policy.

Every day millions of Americans have guns and don't kill anyone. To try to ban guns because of the few bad actors is like trying to ban all Muslims. Statistically there are about 700k Muslims that lean with ISIS (at least wanting to establish a caliphate). I apply the same heuristic as above to the question, "should I fear Muslims?" My answer is that statically, no. Should I respect the possibility of one of those 700k going nuts glib? Sure. But I don't worry about Muslim co-workers or Muslims walking down the street.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#124

Post by nkoren »

ocschwar wrote: post #69
cderwin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't expect any scientists to want to be on a Republican ticket, why refuse to support prospective scientists who would do so? There might not be many conservative scientists, but I'm sure they exist. The only answer that seems feasible to me is that they're not really interested in getting scientists elected, instead they're more interested in scientists who are willing to abuse their authority to promo…

Because even pro-science republicans, if they win election, are going to be under pressure to caucus with and cooperate with the anti-science damn-near-Khmer-Rouge GOP. I actually contacted 314 offering to run as a pro-science republican against my pro-science democratic congresswoman. I won't win, as her support is solid, but I'd perform quite nicely as a pro-science republican candidate to (I hope) shame the rest o…

Thank you. We need more of you. Keep trying!

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#125

Post by virmundi »

rconti wrote: post #111
virmundi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it scaremongering? Why should consumers not be informed what's in their food? We're told how many carbs something has. This allows keto followers to chose accordingly. We're told if it's kosher. This allows Jews and Muslims and people with taste to choose accordingly. We label the ingredients at a chemical level. This allows consumers to pick the types of fats or sweeteners. Why should we exclude stock/source…

Why shouldn't you have your credit score tattooed on your forehead? Shouldn't merchants know if you're more likely to do a chargeback?

Nope. The system is implicit that the credit card companies will take care of that. While both sides need an adjudicator, there is a system in place to spot/stop bad actors. Not a perfect system, fraud still happens. But a system none the less.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#126

Post by ocschwar »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #122
ocschwar wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hardcore libertarianism is the exception, not the norm in tech. Tech tends to float in big cities and as such is naturally liberal. Wow, do I see a generation gap here. Close your eyes and picture the nation in 1990. As you pointed out, tech tends to float in and around big cities. But we're in 1990. The cities are at rock bottom. Crime all over. Poverty. Horrendous disfunction. Anyone living in the cities back the…

> The cities are at rock bottom. Crime all over. Poverty. Horrendous disfunction. You should read less Trump tweets and more facts. The GDP, salaries, etc in big cities is very impressive. There's a reason the tech innovations and big startups don't come from nowhere Wyoming and instead come from urban centers.

Today they are. In 1990, it was a very different picture.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#127

Post by tyleraldrich »

virmundi wrote: post #123
tyleraldrich wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns should be respected, and thank you for respecting yours. Now, can you guarantee that every person I pass on the street respects their gun as much as you do, and they won't misuse this "power tool" they have the right to own? If you cannot guarantee that, I don't think you can say anybodies fear is unfounded. What you just said is like saying a fear of airplanes is unfounded because all pilots respect their aircr…

I can't guarantee you that. I can't promise every person you pass on the street won't kill you by stabbing you in the eye with a pencil. I can't promise that no one will throw you into an oncoming bus. As to fear about planes or fear in general, the foundation of fear, especially such that motivates policy, should be based on odds. I am terrified when I fly. I still fly. I know, deep down, that I have a higher chance…

"the foundation of fear, especially such that motivates policy, should be based on odds."

That is a fair point and a rational reason. However, it's convenient to say "We've always had guns, the chance of randomly getting shot in the street is low, therefore we should keep them."

What is the chance of randomly getting shot if guns were never legal in the first place (e.g. an American in which no 2nd amendment was present)? What will the chance be of randomly getting shot if guns are made illegal tomorrow? Lower? Higher? Maybe we could look at other countries and see how they compare. If your logic is policy should be related to odds, I think you may have just argued that guns should in fact be illegal based on homicide rates in other developed countries, for example - http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2016/06/visualizing-gun-...

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#128

Post by ocschwar »

Not just scientists. Engineers should to, and for the same reason

If you're a civil engineer, chemical engineer, electrical engineer, or a software engineer, you can find far too many examples of Republican politicians offering rhetoric and policies that are directly at odds with the domain knowledge of your profession.

We can't let this continue.

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#129

Post by jdpedrie »

Daishiman wrote: post #121
jdpedrie wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize a Republican President was just elected who supported gay marriage, right? It wasn't a show stopper for him. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread.

Who made pretty much no mention of it and who's got some serious Christian fundamentalists on its team? Personally having a position is different from putting it in your political agenda.

http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-embraces-gays-in-histori...

Re: Scientists Are Planning to Run for Office

#130

Post by curun1r »

matthewmcg wrote: post #116
curun1r wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that some background in law is necessary when writing laws. Learning to think like a lawyer is a skill. And where a lay person will write a law that sounds sensible, the lawyer will see loopholes that can be exploited and know of contradictions in other laws. Anyone who's worked professionally as a programmer has seen a similar effect. Non-programmers see only the success case and, perhaps, a few obvio…

You're right that legal expertise is essential to drafting bills. But you don't need to be a lawyer--you can also hire one. Legislators have lots of expert resources available to help with drafting including the offices of legislative counsel[1] and professional staffers and committee aides. [1] Example from the House of Representatives: https://legcounsel.house.gov/HOLC/Before_Drafting/Ghost_Writ...

Which is why I compared the elected official to a product manager rather than the programmer. Product owners don't have to be technical, but the best ones often are. And in the cases where a non-technical PM is the best, they're usually bringing some other form of expertise to the table.

I think scientists writing laws, assisted by the legal expertise you mentioned, would be a positive change. They have that other form of expertise. But I also take issue with the above implication that lawyers are somehow unfit to be politicians. They are, in my analogy, the technical product managers. Absent some other form of expertise, having a lawyer in that position is probably the next-best option.

Post reply on HN