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

Harold and George Destroy the World

tomclancy.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 322 posts

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#161

Post by xp84 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #126
ACCount37 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of the problem education systems are solving is not "how do we get knowledge to children", but "how do we get masses of children to learn without coercion of the ugliest kind". Some children are innately motivated to learn. Some are motivated so strongly you could give them a smartphone and watch them learn all they need to learn in life. But those children aren't the norm - they're the freaky 1 in 1000 ou…

> Some children are innately motivated to learn I don't think I've met a single child in my life that isn't excited about learning about new stuff, but it really depends on what it is, it differs a lot! And they're all different as well, someone who's really into math might hate history, or vice-versa. But they all want to learn something , in my experience. The problem occurs when you place them all in one school, a…

Lest you think there’s one simple solution, my kid went to a school for one year that deliberately eliminated all that stuff - no set curriculum, no specific academic goals, and students get the majority of the vote on the rules and anything about the whole setup. They could learn about anything they want to, with no pressure.

Most of the kids spent their whole days playing Xbox, Switch, or brainrot games like Roblox on tablets. (No, they weren’t “creatively building new worlds” on Roblox, just screwing around consuming what others had made in order to manipulate them into spending Robux).

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#162

Post by recursivecaveat »

linkregister wrote: post #139
randallsquared wrote: post #66

The "silver dollar" change isn't -- it's the dime. The design was in the works before the current administration [1], and is only intended to be for the 250th anniversary [2]. The Dept of Defense was only created in the late 1940s. Before that the US had the Dept of War, the Dept of the Navy, and other organizations. The point of calling it "defense" was not because "everyone has the right to defense", but because th…

Famed spy fiction writer Tom Clancy surely knows the provenance of the name Department of War.

Totally different guy actually. The author died in 2013. I was briefly experiencing a bit of disgust at the idea that they were now ghostwriting blog posts as him, before clicking around the site.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#163

Post by dgsii »

jeremyjh wrote: post #124
dgsii wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, the IQ test; the universal, unbiased gauge of intellect across all cultures.

It isn't that, but it is one of the strongest predictors of success in the US military.

Sure, but what has that got to do with “IQ is also highly heritable?” which, in this context, suggests intelligence is something innate and biological, rather than recognizing an IQ test as a gauge skewed by culture and socioeconomic status.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#164

Post by dudefeliciano »

kjksf wrote: post #116
dudefeliciano wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it may have been a euphemism, but the reasoning of this administration for trying to change it back is just childish and stupid: “We won the first world war, we won the second world war, we won everything before that and in between,” Trump said at the signing. “And then we decided to go woke and we changed the name to the Department of Defense.”

[flagged]

No, it's not the right thing and it's done for stupid childish reasons.

I object to the person who was turned off by that sentence in the blog post, because it fits completely in an article claiming that the US government is being run by man babies.

That "rationale" is childish and dumb:

> Project greater strength, resolve, and readiness to adversaries

Why does the mightiest most powerful military in history need to project greater strength? Insecurity?

> Emphasize offensive capability and "winning wars" rather than just defensive posture (Trump argued the "Defense" name sounded too passive or "woke,"

Calling Truman woke is childish and stupid. And why does the US need to emphasize offensive capabilities and winning wars, when the Trump ran on a promise of no new wars?

> better signals "peace through strength"

So you get mad about a euphemistic Department of Defense but eat up some weird narrative about peace through strength? Interesting.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#165

Post by alecco »

dboreham wrote: post #112
echelon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

College and school are super suboptimal at dispensing education. We keep smart kids co-mingled with disruptive kids and bullies. We need to do what Asian countries do - entrance exams at every level. We don't let kids excel at their interest area. Math and science, obviously, but we lack programs for entrepreneurship and leadership that might be better for kids that aren't STEM-focused. Something like a scouts-type p…

You get a free education in entrepreneurship and leadership when you're born into the upper socioeconomic groups.

I think you are reflecting on survivor bias for successful people.

Almost all rich families I met saw entrepreneurship as lower-status. They chase arts and such. They are posturing they don't need to care about money. [of course it's a lie, but they do it anyway]

Only a fraction of the new rich get their kids into entrepreneurship while the rest are just spoiled. I heard many times "I want my kids to have all the things I din't have growing up" and then the kids turn into horrible entitled brats who hate their parents. Then the inevitable "How could they do this to me! I gave them everything!". It's not easy raising kids, even with enough money.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#166

Post by chrisoverzero »

lucianbr wrote: post #104
designerarvid wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have predicted the end of the world for literally thousands of years. Should’ve happened by now, right?

There's a first time for everything, and an end to most things. The roman empire lasted hundreds of years, and then it ended. Many empires did. The sun will end too, at some point. Ice ages last for thousands of years, then they end. And there are countless other examples. "X has lasted a long time so it will last more" is so obviously wrong. Think about it for more than 3 seconds. Or was it sarcasm? I can't tell any…

> “X has lasted a long time so it will last more” is so obviously wrong.

Smarter people than you and I have thought about this problem and come to the opposite conclusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#167

Post by adventured »

MidnightRider39 wrote: post #138
randallsquared wrote: post #66

The "silver dollar" change isn't -- it's the dime. The design was in the works before the current administration [1], and is only intended to be for the 250th anniversary [2]. The Dept of Defense was only created in the late 1940s. Before that the US had the Dept of War, the Dept of the Navy, and other organizations. The point of calling it "defense" was not because "everyone has the right to defense", but because th…

Starting the war with Iran was definitely a pretty stupid decision, even at this point of it. In a couple of years it will look like the beginning of the end for the US hegemony.

No it won't, that's merely fantasy projection (a personal desire for the US to suffer for what it's doing). US hegemony ended with the rise of China's economy into superpower status over the past 10-15 years. There was no scenario where the relatively brief US hegemony from the late 1980s to the late 2000s was going to continue no matter what the US did. China was always going to build a military to match its economic might. That military will gradually project globally.

US hegemony lasted for a mere ~20 years. Today it does not possess hegemony, China is able to stand-off fully with the US both economically and militarily (at least in Asia).

Iran is a regional conflict. It will matter less than the Iraq war and occupation did.

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#168

Post by the_real_cher »

amelius wrote: post #148
randallsquared wrote: post #66

The "silver dollar" change isn't -- it's the dime. The design was in the works before the current administration [1], and is only intended to be for the 250th anniversary [2]. The Dept of Defense was only created in the late 1940s. Before that the US had the Dept of War, the Dept of the Navy, and other organizations. The point of calling it "defense" was not because "everyone has the right to defense", but because th…

We can soon rename "Dept of War" into "Dept of Debt".

USA= United States of Accounts payable

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#169

Post by CWuestefeld »

megaloblasto wrote: post #29
Esophagus4 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird analogy, but it feels similar to the way old music differed to new music. Old music had more variation in volume - volume rises and falls to add nuance to the piece. New music is produced differently and has a more “flat” sound due to everything being louder and variation being reduced by compression. Seems like some parallels to other forms of media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

I strongly disagree. Just because compression is common in pop music (and perhaps overused in some genres) doesn't mean new music isn't innovative and dynamic. When I listen to music say from 1920 to 1950, it is so often so incredibly lame (not always). It's basic ideas and chord progressions and simple melodies with lyrics that don't say much. Music is a way for people to express themselves and relate about how they…

It's not just compression. Rick Beato has talked about this a lot.

Popular music no longer has any key changes:

From 1960 to 1995, between 20% and 35% of Billboard Hot 100 number one hits in any given year contained a key change. Around the turn of the millennium that rate started to dip until it hit 0% by the end of the 2000s. [1]

I believe that simple 4/4 time has also become more prevalent as compared to more complex time signatures. I don't have as good support for this claim, but the AI tells me "4/4 (simple quadruple) has dominated Western popular music since at least the 1960s, and corpus work suggests that compound and non‑4/4 meters have become less common over time in mainstream styles, implying an even higher proportion of songs in simple 4/4 today.".

Beato is also fond of pointing out how modern music is written by committee, and that modern artists are more a "product" than ever before. From memory, he's pointing out that in the past, the credited writer of popular songs was usually a band, or perhaps a single person. But more recently, the credited writer is a list of multiple people not the band (and in fact, top songs across recent years have been notable not under the name of a band, but of an individual performer).

EDIT: Further querying leads to this as well:

Timbral Variety: The "texture" of sounds. In the 70s, you had a mix of acoustic, electric, and orchestral layers. Studies show a "homogenization of the timbral palette" since the 1960s peak.

Lyrical Complexity: The vocabulary and reading level of lyrics. Analysis of Billboard hits shows the average reading level has dropped from 3.5 to 2.7 (roughly 3rd grade) since 2005.

[1] https://www.cantgetmuchhigher.com/p/revisiting-the-death-of-...

Re: Harold and George Destroy the World

#170

Post by budman1 »

jmyeet wrote: post #89

[flagged]

"eventually get to live in a world where all the baby boomers are dead"

man, that stings. as a member of the birth class of 1963.

each of us is a product of our times. i wish no ill will on those younger or older than myself. personally, i have lived my life in a way to be a good steward of the world. was it always successful; no.

not malice, perhaps ignorance. please enjoy what is left of the world. i did my best to leave it better than it was when I received it.

if you don't like the world, try to change it. you have agency.

Post reply on HN