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

What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 244 posts

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#61

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

leereeves wrote: post #55
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2019 election - just like the previous 3, subverted the popular vote by way of First Past the Post. Nationally, the pro-leave side only secured a minority of the vote. And unfortunately a major problem with proportional representation is there's no one single best way to achieve PR - any campaign to achieve PR would be stymied by splitting the pro-PR faction between STV and IRV, for example.

> The 2019 election - just like the previous 3, subverted the popular vote by way of First Past the Post. Nationally, the pro-leave side only secured a minority of the vote. Labour's official position is to negotiate a deal and then hold a final referendum. [1] So there were three positions in the election (leave, remain, vote again) and leave won the largest share of the popular vote. 1: https://labour.org.uk/page/l…

But even so, the largest share were not the majority.

The majority of the country doesn’t want the Tories to negotiate the withdrawal. But that’s what is going to happen.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#62

Post by wolco »

jashmatthews wrote: post #56
jtbayly wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> convince people to either not vote - or to vote against their personal best interests. I’ve seen this on HN several times, and it always cracks me up. The condescension isn't dripping. It’s running in torrents. You think the reason they won’t vote the way you want is because they don’t know what’s good for themselves. You might want to consider an alternate: they don’t want someone like you deciding what’s good for…

If you look at the 1997 Labour manifesto, which led to the UK doubling GDP from 97 to and 2007 and the 2019 Labour manifesto they’re very similar. If you ask people if Labour was good for the economy and would be good for the economy, you’ll largely get a negative response. Unfortunately it’s easy for people’s opinions to be shaped with zero basis in fact and when this happens it’s easy for them to vote against their…

Side point. Just because a government is in power doesn't mean they are responsible for the economy doing well. Often the previous policies take time to take hold more so global trends are driving this. What happened after 2007 the housing crisis.. in part made by government policy spanning decades in part because of foreign influence through global markets.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#63

Post by syshum »

harimau777 wrote: post #49
syshum wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>You can blame the government, I dont blame government, as it is not and should not be the governments role to do this. >Those things sound like they’re precisely the kind of stuff that’s the domain of non-profits and the government. Non-Profits yes, government no Government sole and only job should be to preserve and protect the rights of citizens. Expanding government beyond this role has always lead to disaster a…

Throughout the vast majority of human history the role of government has not been just to preserve and protect rights, but also to promote the public good. This is true both of national government and more informal governments such as those in churches and clubs. I think that humanity is a species that operates and survives as a society; therefore, I think its likely that there is a place for society promoting the co…

>>>such as those in churches and clubs.

Churches and Clubs are generally voluntary organizations on chooses to join, and can leave. Thus can not be classified as a government

I have no choice but to interact with the government and should I choose not to said government will put me in a cage and/or use violence against me to compel my activity,

I am sure you next comment will be "well you vote so you consented..." which is equally absurd of a notion for voluntary interactivity

>>>Throughout the vast majority of human history the role of government has not been just to preserve and protect rights

I am aware of this history, and almost universally it has lead to suffering, tyranny, and oppression

>>>However, any process can become harmful if it is allowed to run without limits or safeguards.

It is often governments and the legal system to provide the avenue of these abuses. Limiting liability, and shielding corporations via layers of liability shields, caps and other regulations

>>> During the time that poverty has been reduced worldwide we have had both profit motive and the government operating;

yes, and poverty would be ALOT lower if government was not "helping"

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#64

Post by krapp »

sokoloff wrote: post #60
krapp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the condescending part is that the left views poor people who vote for non-democrats as voting against their self-interest. And the right views poor people who vote for Democrats as lazy grifters just looking for a handout, naive fools in the pocket of globalist elites, or else not "real Americans" like themselves. It isn't only the left or Democrats which have a problem in this regard. The right/Republican end of t…

Naked contempt from one side. Pitying condescension from the other. It's nice that we have a choice.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Unfortunately, my state went for Kang.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#65

Post by travisoneill1 »

Zarath wrote: post #52
lizardking wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to convince republicans, you need to convince moderates who can be persuaded to vote one way or the other in a given election. In the context of a general election, we’re talking about thousands of people in a handful of states. I’m struggling with how the idea of “condescension isn’t persuasive” is finding so much friction here.

The democratic party still hasn't learned from their mistakes of the last election unfortunately.

The condescension isn't really coming from the democratic party. Mostly it's from their allies in the press. The democratic party probably knows what the problem is, but doesn't really know how to deal with it.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#66

Post by wolco »

seibelj wrote: post #26
zozbot234 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually see the argument "you're voting against your own interests" from the free-market, libertarianish side. You may be right that it's often viewed as condescending, but I'm not sure what the alternative would be since the proper pursuit of 'enlightened self-interest' is the whole point of that sort of politics.

The condescending part is that the left views poor people who vote for non-democrats as voting against their self-interest. No one knows what someone’s self-interest is except the person who is voting. Considering the US has only 2 major options on elections, there is a panoply of reasons why someone votes and merely saying “poor people who vote republican are brainwashed idiots” is what grates on people who believe…

You have it wrong. In many cases poor people are better served by voting for lower taxes, cheaper products, maintaining the status quo so there factory job can stay a little longer. It might mean dropping union protections because it makes there state more investable. In the auto sector jobs shifted to southern states without unions.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#67

Post by pbhjpbhj »

abnry wrote: post #30
traderjane wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is DaiPlusPlus is forcing things down people's throats? Is DaiPlusPlus' condescension running in torrents? Are you being condescending? If I say that consumers are being tricked by ad companies, am I being condescending? How dare I make judgments on so many people? And when American Christians say that Jesus Christ is the only true way and that Islam is a false path, and that all other ways are false pathways which l…

You are missing the point. If I say, "I support X" and you say, "I support not X," that's just a disagreement. If I say, "I support" and you say, "I support not X, and if you weren't so blind you'd think that too," that's being condescending because you are assuming that someone (a) has fundamentally the same values than you but is (b) too stupid to see it. The reality is that people can value something different tha…

>people can value something different than you (less government intervention, less restrictions on speech, lower taxes) for fundamental reasons different than yours //

You're right, but in the election run-up people living on minimum wage, who complained we needed a change because of the rich getting too rich, also were convinced that Labour's tax increases were a devastating blow to them personally; tax increases that a family of two well-paid professionals would be unlikely to even be affected by.

The reason they hate those taxes is not because they're bad for them, they would undoubtedly be benefited. Nor is it because they actually have a financial basis for a belief in lower taxes for the extraordinarily well off. It's a matter of advertising -- the private press splash an advert "Marxist Money Madness" or whatever and tell the people they're going to be hit by massive tax increases costing taxpayers 1000s.

Of course it's a carefully tailored half-truth. It does cost taxpayers _who_are_affected_ thousands but people on gross wages below £80k aren't. The message the minimum wage, or benefits only, households get is "if Labour get in we will have to pay thousands more tax" (which to them is a lot, despite the tax rises not actually applying to them). They also don't appear to realise taxes pay for running the country; things they benefit from (health, education, roads, trade relations, ...) or if they do that reducing taxes won't just make these things cheaper but mean they have to pay individually (and pay a profit to capitalists as part of that deal). If they do realise these things there's no rational reason for then to support them; really there isn't, not for the vast majority of the populous.

Many people can't do basic percentages, they genuinely just trust the headlines.

The BBC have failed in refusing to call out lies because that would be "targeted" at one particular party (apparently 80% of their Facebook posts were factually flawed) because they are the ones telling the lies.

And why? Well look at the headlines post-election many Tories made many hundreds of £millions. Everyone else is working on inputs to value creation and they're playing the system and walking away with all the value.

In short, yes, there are genuine differences in political opinion. But there is also a massive deficit of understanding too.

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#68

Post by EliRivers »

jtbayly wrote: post #13
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is to govern. Government in most countries is driven by democratic mandates. Democratic mandates are set by influencers. The US’ key influencers are largely regressive and dishonest - and convince people to either not vote - or to vote against their personal best interests[1]. The US government does not currently have a democratic mandate to operate as the social welfare state. Consequently hundreds of tho…

> convince people to either not vote - or to vote against their personal best interests. I’ve seen this on HN several times, and it always cracks me up. The condescension isn't dripping. It’s running in torrents. You think the reason they won’t vote the way you want is because they don’t know what’s good for themselves. You might want to consider an alternate: they don’t want someone like you deciding what’s good for…

they don’t want someone like you deciding what’s good for them and forcing it down their throats

But they're happy with other people deciding what's good for them; people who've decided that what's good for them is to be poorer and sicker?

If they could be tricked into becoming richer and healthier, without realising they're doing it by voting for commie socialism or whatever scare label is in vogue, is that wrong? Is there some morality there, like life is an art project.

Seriously; is that wrong? Is it more wrong to tell people what will make them richer and healthier, or to let them be poorer and sicker?

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#69

Post by vageli »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #33
abnry wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point. If I say, "I support X" and you say, "I support not X," that's just a disagreement. If I say, "I support" and you say, "I support not X, and if you weren't so blind you'd think that too," that's being condescending because you are assuming that someone (a) has fundamentally the same values than you but is (b) too stupid to see it. The reality is that people can value something different tha…

> The reality is that people can value something different than you (less government intervention, less restrictions on speech, lower taxes) Why do you assume we don't value those things? Isn't that _you_ being condescending now?

> > The reality is that people can value something different than you (less government intervention, less restrictions on speech, lower taxes)

> Why do you assume we don't value those things? Isn't that _you_ being condescending now?

If you assume people do share the values, or if you assume they do not, you are still assuming to know their values. Better to just ask the person and start the conversation from there rather than shut down debate with something along the lines of "You'd agree with me if you weren't misled by X".

Re: What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?

#70

Post by vageli »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #57
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a cop out: the electorate is still responsible for the politicians it puts in power. I disagree. After reading about famous propagandists from the past century I'm just depressed that it's so easy to manipulate enough of the public to vote a particular way. Yes, it's the people's fault - but the people are fallable and _predictable_ enough to be played like a puppet. If someone is an idiot and is convinced…

Both can be true (and probably are). Yes, modern propaganda is odious, but also yes, don’t let us off the hook. At least while we feel responsible for our elections, we have some modicum of interest in them. I’ve seen countries where they’ve lost hope, who are democratic in name only. It’s not pretty.

> I’ve seen countries where they’ve lost hope, who are democratic in name only. It’s not pretty.

I'm curious about the list of countries that are democratic in name only (and also wondering about the time frames involved), would you elaborate?

Post reply on HN