What Oxford taught me about posh people • Hacker News Board

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#341

Post by kowlo » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #340

kowlo wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure - Computer Science, and now a consultant!

So, do you get your fix of mentoring/teaching/research through that; it perhaps through FOSS involvement or ...? Not suggesting you have to, just your comment suggested that was/is your passion.

A few things!

- peer-review for journals and conferences

- a fellowship and guest lectures

- collaborating with my previous co-authors in my own time

- publishing educational content

and you're right, it is something I'm passionate about. The list above is my attempt to stay involved, but I'm not sure how that will work out long term. Hopefully I will find something sustainable.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#342

Post by twobitshifter » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

geomark wrote: post #321

twobitshifter wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s common elsewhere as well. A construction loan in the US will work the same way and have a draw schedule that must be followed.

Interesting. I was unaware of that and thought it was a bizarre approach unique to banks in this so-called developing country.

I think it’s needed when the collateral for the loan is something that doesn’t yet exist. If you were to put up something other than your yet to be constructed home as the collateral you could do without a draw schedule. The bank is rightfully concerned that you build your house to the level you described in the plans so that they can recoup their money if you some day default.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#343

Post by jseban » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

ynfnehf wrote: post #339

jseban wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar situation. And any time you use the nordic countries as an example, you have to realise that the middle class takes a huge hit for financing the equality. Sweden has implemented a LOT of trickle down economy tax breaks for the wealthy people during the 2000s, such as completely getting rid of property tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax. Just to keep money in the country. At the same time, the working people of…

> I'm still sceptical if there even exists a successful welfare state that does not rely on natural resources, or the aftermath of some war. I was referring to this. Both Denmark and Finland were to a large extent involved in WW2, and neither have natural resources of the same kind as Norway. Or is your opinion that they are not successful welfare states?

I'm not sure to be honest, but for sure they were not involved in WW2 as much as other allies, and also I'm certain that the middle class in Denmark and Finland have very humble incomes/lives compared to for example the UK or US.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#344

Post by trasz » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:37 PM UTC

jseban wrote: post #320

trasz wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah but in reality what happens is that if you redistribute too much In reality this doesn't happen.

This is what has happened to all of the failed communist countries.

[citation needed]

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#345

Post by madaxe_again » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:39 PM UTC

fyhhvff wrote: post #308

madaxe_again wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In U.K. collegiate universities, like Oxbridge and Durham, there is a huge cultural divide between colleges and courses. I went to Durham. I was - I am - a posh kid - albeit one who’s acutely and painfully aware of his advantage. The college I was in was stacked to the rafters with posh kids. Everything orbited the social life - the balls, the ents, who was where in the pecking order of committees and executives. I m…

What is an "ent"?

An “entertainment”, as the sibling says - anything from theatre to a festival to a party to a booze-up to a charity run to a charity booze-up run - basically student-organised activities of one variety or another.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#346

Post by notdang » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 3:48 PM UTC

teachingassist wrote: post #294

ceejayoz wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Third-class passage was £8, approximately $1000 in today's currency, i.e. more expensive than an equivalent trans-atlantic flight today, and too expensive for poor people to typically consider. Desperately poor people spend well over that to get smuggled across the Mexican border today. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/30/world/smuggli... > A decade ago, Mexicans and Central Americans paid between $1,000…

You can call people who are willing to spend and have access to $10,000 desperate, but I don't know how useful it is to call them poor. Your last sentence quoted clearly describes people with inherited wealth. In my opinion, that's not describing a poor person, by almost any measure. It falls into the sibling commenter's category description of petit bourgeoisie .

Those people are really poor, they bet their lives on those $10000 that they don't even own. They are not "willing to spend", they are willing to lose their life for it, it's a huge difference.

They borrow it from the extended family, everyone chips in, it's like a risky investment that some day can pay off.

When the extended family funds are not enough, they borrow from the "organized crime", i.e. the narcos.

Sometimes they don't pay the whole sum before and now they own to the coyotes, which are also the narcos.

During the immigration process, they are getting abducted, executed (whole buses of immigrants were killed in Mexico), the rules change midway, usually they own more money at the end that were agreed at the start.

Definitively they are not the petit bourgeoisie.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#347

Post by jiveturkey » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

vletal wrote: post #4

My life goal was to attend one of these elite universities. I desired to work at companies such as Google or Apple. After graduating from the Czech Technical University I realized that 1. I am much less special then I thought 2. There is much more hard working focused average people then the few talented superstars, both usually achieving the same 3. Surprisingly many of the exceptionally smart people in my social bu…

#5

Don't be too firm in the belief that you yourself learned this in spite of your experience. Perhaps you learned it because of. We tend to appreciate and yearn for the things we don't have, the things we are too busy doing "work" to enjoy.

It does sound "better" to not worry about what -- now -- seems unimportant, but if your kids will grow up in capitalist society, it is critical that they have a focus on competing. Success is doled out in a pareto distribution. If you aren't already starting from the top, you have a very, very long uphill climb. Which will get worse. It's hard to enjoy the beauty of the world on an artist's salary.

#6 Getting fired isn't necessarily failure. These guys certainly have fallbacks. I'm sure they've learned from the firings. Maybe at their next role they will be superstars due to this experience?

In summary I think you are unfairly diminishing the value of an Oxford or other elite education. Partly or mostly because of the disillusionment. But it's not just about the academic/education part of the experience. Actually that's the least important part. Maybe when they were founded, it was quite important. Nowadays the internet gives us so much access to information that filtering it is more important than being spoon fed it. That doesn't mean elite universities aren't very important social signals and don't convey unfair advantages.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#348

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

bopbeepboop wrote: post #145

lotsofpulp wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Is this the case? I would think most adults have realized that nature does not do fair, and it cannot be made fair. I was under the impression that "progressivism" is more about raising the floor for quality of life, not about making things fair. So as to avoid the situations of favelas next to high rise condos with pools on their balconies.

My experience suggests most progressives don’t realize that: - they tend to be young; - political activists who have done nothing else; - or drug addicts. I can count on my fingers the number of serious progressives I’ve met who aren’t one of those things during my entire life in Seattle. The “progressive” movement is why we have addicts encamped at a school — they’re so out of touch with reality, they view that as “…

>The “progressive” movement is why we have addicts encamped at a school — they’re so out of touch with reality, they view that as “compassion”.

I would not classify that as progressivism. Things like voting rights and ranked choice voting, progressive taxation, environmental protection, increasing educational opportunities for all, more nutritional options for food at schools, access to mental and all other healthcare, etc would fall under progressivism in my book. Of course, I'm not the arbiter of what is and is not deemed progressive, but generally I was under the impression that the goals were to keep the bottom quintiles moving forward, not letting drug addicts establish camps on or near school grounds.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#349

Post by nickpp » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #327

WalterBright wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, a stock market is the antithesis of communism. You're not going to redefine your way out of that one :-)

I don't claim to be an expert in politology, but what I remember from school seems to indicate that the common ownership of the means of production is the core idea of communism. I don't understand how a stock market is antithetical to that. As I see it, common ownership of the means of production can be achieved both with and without a stock market. Could you maybe elaborate your standpoint?

A stock market allows people to acquire ownership in companies, but it will be highly unequal: some of them will have more, some will have less, some will have none. That unequal ownership will generate correspondingly unequal rewards.

No communist system can allow that. Instead, the companies are uniformly state-owned and the rewards added to the state coffers where they will be pillaged and shared by the politically connected.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#350

Post by teachingassist » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #313

teachingassist wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can call people who are willing to spend and have access to $10,000 desperate, but I don't know how useful it is to call them poor. Your last sentence quoted clearly describes people with inherited wealth. In my opinion, that's not describing a poor person, by almost any measure. It falls into the sibling commenter's category description of petit bourgeoisie .

Subsistence farmers tend to have both land and homes, yet are desperately poor, eking out just enough of a living to survive. Some go into debt, hoping there'll be opportunity on the other side of the border. Some lose their lives when they aren't able to pay those debts back to the coyotes.

I'm not going to claim that living a subsistent lifestyle on your own land is a wonderful utopia - I don't think that.

But, relative poverty in this situation would mean that you don't have your own land, to do this.

Wikipedia comments that subsistence farmers typically have meaningful economic power in their community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture