IMO, the issue of 1% wealth is not an ethical one. I don't care how much money anyone makes, I don't think it's unethical for some people to have more and some people to have less.
But, when we get to these scales, where a very small number of individuals controls large amounts of social resources, it becomes a society-wide efficiency issue. Solitary individuals cannot allocate capital as well as large collections of people can. A thriving startup ecosystem is better than a single person picking winners and losers.
When you have individuals controlling huge swathes of resources, you get weird outcomes, like the Metaverse or WeWork or the Line. These things are monumental wastes of human effort, and they naturally arise when the distribution of wealth becomes too extreme. And it gets worse and worse when they begin suppressing private enterprise by leveraging the state, which is certainly already happening (see: tech execs paying $1m to stand behind DJT at the inauguration).
I don't care about the individual "The 1%". I don't care who they are, how craven and greedy, how creepy, how ugly, how disgusting. I don't care whether they are going to heaven or hell. What I care about is that they are burning vast amounts of human potential on things that don't benefit anyone at all. They're wasting huge amounts of time. I think about this every time I have to wait 3h on hold with a huge, bloated, inefficient corporation, whose owner spends a quarter of their time schmoozing in Washington D.C: a startup should be there competing, preventing me from wasting my time!
Because these systems are not only used on illegal immigrants. To give you a very clear example: a US citizen was murdered without any due process a few days ago by ICE.
Because surveilling people -- PEOPLE, not citizens -- without probable cause is a violation of the US constitution?
It is a bad thing because it leads to innocent people being brutalized, it's a violation of the constitution, it's very clearly the primary tool of an increasingly authoritarian government?
“Due process” is not a magic incantation. This is emotional, moralizing rhetoric that doesn’t persuade anyone. People who insert themselves into operations involving the state’s actors who have a monopoly on violence are risking their lives and legal jurisprudence has upheld the state’s actions to stop them by whatever means necessary in similar cases many, many times. And it’s obvious things could not operate in any other way. The state cannot give you a free pass to stop the operation of law enforcement and they definitely can’t give you a free pass to run over the agents of the state. “Due process” does not factor in to live situations that have a risk of death or injury. (It also doesn’t mean a court case. People talk about it in this thread as though the administrative orders issued by immigration judges aren’t due process.)
I don’t have a problem if people want to acknowledge this and risk their lives knowingly in protest of whatever they don’t like, but it’s absurd to pretend that’s not what you’re doing. I don’t think that’s what’s happening though when Good’s girlfriend asked why they were using real bullets.
The state having your address is also not surveillance in any meaningful sense.
edit: I'm ratelimited so I can't reply to the reply: no, he didn't answer. These people did get due process. So it's about something else. ICE is being used for its legally authorized purpose, which yes, includes removing people who illegally hinder them.
The term to consider here is >extrajudical killing<
As in: Someone wotking for the executive kills another citizen, without 1) a need to do so for selfdefense 2) any justification from the judicary for it, and that without being charged for murder/aggrevated manslaugther.
The argument: they are not doing what this law enforcement person wants do do of them (whether that obstruction is legal or not), so they are free to be killed is nothing but the total disregard for the law, any decency and the respect for human life and dignity. In short it is lynchmob mentality.
The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street, which is recognized by the Supreme Court even when nobody is directly in front of the car. They don’t have to wait until you kill someone and get tried for it. They can legally just shoot you under current law. That’s what the courts say.
Self-defense is, however, an entirely plausible defense in this scenario, even if the agent could have acted differently to not be in the path of someone already behaving erratically, and even if people only with the benefit of slo-mo multi-angle replays don’t think so. That’s why nobody is being charged. This happens all the time, unfortunately. The minute you choose to endanger people around you in the presence of people with guns, you’ve rolled the dice on your life.
So do you have any actual examples of what you’re describing?
>The argument is that people recklessly driving their vehicles with a total disregard for the lives around them are a danger to the people in front of their car and anyone else on the street
And my argument is that no matter what SCOTUS law one cites, or hand-waving about self-defense that is said, that shooting her in the head from the side of the car was not only tactically unnecessary, but objectively made the situation worse in a way that a competent person should immediately recognize.
One does not need slow-mo to see she wasn't trying to kill anyone.
>The minute you choose to endanger people around you in the presence of people with guns, you’ve rolled the dice on your life.
This is shorthand for "comply or die". Welcome to the free world. I wonder if Europe and Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the world know what they're missing by not having LEO as qualified as ICE running their streets.
> I wonder if Europe and Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the world know what they're missing by not having LEO as qualified as ICE running their streets.
"Europe" is of course not a place, but maybe you'd be surprised to know this does happen in "Europe" and other countries. In fact France specifically legalized police shooting vehicles fleeing traffic stops even if the police themselves are not in danger, and about a dozen people are killed that way every year.
Heck, here's a video of a shooting in Canada where the police fired at someone just trying to get away:
> One does not need slow-mo to see she wasn't trying to kill anyone.
She accelerated her car before turning the wheels knowing people were in the path of her car. (Even if you argue that the wheels spinning before the wheels turn doesn't count, cars do not turn rotate on their central axis, so accelerating while turning still endangers people in front of the car.) Nobody can read her mind but the possible consequences of that action are obvious. Legally that constitutes intent, regardless of what we might want to project on her state of mind.
Further, if you do want to talk about state of mind, you cannot argue that any person behaving rationally would choose to commit a felony and flee from LEO in a vehicle in the first place. This is an extremely high-risk move for zero benefit and the video confirms it didn't even take place out of panic, which was my original thought. On the ground in that situation there can be no analysis of "what is she thinking" because she abandoned the reasonable course that anyone there would have expected her to take.
> that shooting her in the head
No confirmed gunshot wound is in her head. Where did you hear this? It appears the ICE officer fired center of mass, as two confirmed gunshot wounds are in her chest and one in her arm.
I realize that arguing these technical issues will not change your mind, because for you the emotion of "people dying is bad" trumps all the reasons it happened. But I hope it will get you to consider what other people are thinking.
> tactically unnecessary, but objectively made the situation worse
That isn't clear at all because you cannot know what the counterfactual is. There were armed people who could have shot James Fields before he accelerated into a crowd. If they had, Heather Heyer would be alive today. If they had shot him, then people would be making the same argument you're making. Hitting the gas while your car is surrounded by people is no different than firing a gun randomly. In the very best case, your are operating a deadly weapon with a total disregard for human life. In some situations (self-defense), that may be justified. But it is not innocent.
The way to stop this from happening is to stop encouraging people to commit crimes by interfering with law enforcement. There are other effective ways to protest. Another good start would be winning elections. Encouraging people to get into violent encounters with law enforcement is risking peoples' lives for nothing. Once you choose violence you don't know where it's going to go.
What? You know someone in thisbthread made the argument, that it is not smart to shoot at someone driving at you because it won't stop the car. The truth of that can be seen in the recording of the video where renne nicole is being shot by that ICE person. The car is driving right on till it crashes into a mast or post or whatever these things are called. At this point her brain must be blown all over the interior of the car, since he had that gun on her head before the car started. You know. The guy was standing to the side of the car, and that woman must have been scarred for her life. I mean when you're so close, you must feel what is going on. And I think it is clear where the car will be going by the point that man decided to pull the trigger. Watch the video closely again. Imaging standing there with the gun. You would feel the rotation of her boy propagating through the pistol that is elongating your hand. You feel how the car is movjng away from you, even so you want it to stop and want the dooe to open up. You must see the thoughts and emotions of that woman running over her face as she decides to disobey and flee.
What I see is someone who wants someone else to obey and to control them and is so entitled to the idea that the woman in the car should do, that when she doesn't do as he wants, the inhibition that a person who is representing the state doesn't work anymore and the impulse to take control and to take power is taking over. And he pulls the trigger.
I mean that is what I think I see when I watch the video. You described your perception. (That isn't even to contadicting. You argue that starting the car and (potentially) fleeing, is legitimage reason to kill someone.
To me that is insane but so is everybody carrying weapons, so there is that. Especially non police having these privileges that are normally reserved for highly trained and sworn in police (that have in my understanding absolutely have to weigh the risk to their life against the certainty to end that of someone they are there to protect, even if that person acts against there will. Where I live it is assumed that the impulse to flee is and to preserve yourself is extremely strong in every individual so, that attemptimg to do so does not constitute a crime/felony or whatever)
Anyways: to get from disagreements in perspective and assumptions about what is right and wrong to something that can be the foundation of a civil society (as opposed to the "lawless wild west" as the sayinf goes) there is written law and independent judical processes in which these assumptions and perspectives are weight againsg each other. So that is what should be happening.
People not having to undergo this scrutiny after such an act hat ended someone elses life means and being protected from that is so inlawfull I miss the right terms to qualify it. Something about lynching, mobs, lawlessness and disregard for humaan life and dignity all sanctioned by the highest political authority of your country.
>This is emotional, moralizing rhetoric that doesn’t persuade anyone.
If the constitution is now just "emotional rhetoric", then we are lost. No point showing you the article breaking down every bit of conduct in this situation if you dont care aboht law.
This will be a civil war with the only winner being China. Good luck.
He answered your question perfectly now you're rolling your eyes at the concept of due process, which has little to do with the original conversation (why is Palantir bad?) Do you just like being contrarian?
That person isjustifying using deadly force on someone who was driving away, by the command of said shooter. This is the exact kind of person who is the reason this regime isn't unilaterally overturned.
That chart shown in the article is very interesting. But I think more important things happened in 2023 than just GPT3.5.
ZIRP ending, coding becoming a full blown meme ("day in the life of a wfh swe" videos on tiktok), and work from home exploding.
This combination of factors made it risky to make a mistake hiring an unqualified SWE. SWE salaries exploded AND money got more expensive. At the same time, the number of unqualified applicants exploded due to the EZ bootcamp wfh 6 fig meme, and on top of this, remote interviewing made it very easy to cheat your way into a job you were not qualified for. Since it's very difficult to gauge quality of SWE talent, this pushed companies very strongly in the direction of hiring senior talent. Of course, companies and managers do not want to announce that they do not know a good engineer from an awful one. So here comes a convenient excuse, the excuse that companies make for everything nowadays: "AI".
The article is correct though. This explosion in interest in CS, along with very powerful AI tools, has produced a very strong batch of junior engineers that are very very underpriced relative to their senior colleagues. If I were running a company right now and needed cheap, strong talent, there is never a better time than now. Recruit and hire exclusively junior engineers -- and only interview in-person.
Software development compensation in the US id very much bi modal.
Most developers in the US work at banks, insurance companies, etc - “the enterprise” - in tier 2 cities. Those developers usually max out at around $160K-$175K or less and it hasn’t kept up with inflation. I did all of my “enterprise dev” up until 2020 in Atlanta. You can look at the compensation of well known Atlanta companies like Delta, Coke and Home Depot. You will see the same pattern in most other cities in the US outside of the west coast and NYC
Enterprise devs if they remain so will probably never crack $200K inflation adjusted. I don’t know any of my friends/former coworkers who are still software developers in their 40s who still live and work in Atlanta who are making over $160K. They are doing well enough though being married with two incomes.
The problem on that end is that it is easy enough to be a good enough generic CRUD LOB developer, it started being commoditized around 2015 and comp stagnated on the high end.
FWIW, I pivoted to cloud consulting specializing in app dev when a (full time with the standard 4 year comp structure) when a remote position at AWS ProServe fell into my lap (still work in consulting - not at AWS). We moved to state tax free Florida in 2022
On another note, it still doesn’t make sense to hire juniors. The difference in comp for a junior dev and senior dev on the enterprise /small SaaS startup side is at most 60K if you stay out of SFBay or NYC and set up shop in a second tier city. You probably won’t need the route. Look at the laughable comp being offered by most early YC startups. No statistically worthless illiquid equity in a private company is not what I consider “compensation”
I was on a trip to the mountains recently. Get out into nature, get away from it all, etc. I look up into the sky and see a satellite. I remember when this was a novelty, it was so rare to see them. But I saw at least 10 of them in the time I spent stargazing.
It's just so bleak. We did this for what? To have _more_ internet?! Is that really what we need?
Absolutely, there's been no major conflict like this since WW2. The strategy shifted to proxy controlled damage in places not US, not Russia, not China, but the weaker states where there was some incentive for control (resources, geography, political alliance, etc). While not a big state (not since centuries), Iran was a proxy controller with the capacity to cause mayhem.
The issue with consolidating a BLDC driver is thermals more than anything else, right? Much easier to keep the MOSFETs cool if they aren't packed in on chip. Plus you can customize their size to the load.
Yeah, for most applications it's preferred that way. It's only for the ultra-compact, ultra high volume production, ultra high energy densities that packing it all into a single, unobody die and package could make sense. It would offer minor benefits anyway. Only when every gram, watt and mm3 counts would it be worth even thinking about. Maybe for very large vehicles (trucks, boats) or extremely small applications it would make more sense?
The distribution is a problem, but not for the reasons people think. At these amounts (billions) the money stops being human-scale and starts to become civilization scale. You can accomplish big things with 150 billion. Things like: installing a gigawatt of solar, building a 1000km HVDC line, etc.
The issue is that when that 150 billion is concentrated into one person's hands, it tends to be inefficiently allocated. This is the argument against central planning; it's inefficient, it does not actually go where it would maximally benefit society.
We have, with the amount of wealth inequality, essentially re-invented central planning. It's arguably worse today, because rather than giving central control to a worker's council which is nominally accountable to regular people, we've given it to Larry Ellison who is going to build yet another datacenter for AI, instead of spending it on energy or manufacturing capacity.
My home electricity bill has doubled since AI came out. That is my evidence that this concentration of wealth is egregiously misallocating capital. It is a civilization-scale self-own. Countries that allocate capital properly will wipe the floor and we are beginning to see that play out.
It's so frustrating. We already created a font for government communication, Public Sans. It looks great, it's very strong, neutral, readable, and respectable. Clearly a lot of effort went into making it accessible etc.
But we have to throw that away because the wrong party was in charge when it happened.
I'm so sick of this RETVRN crap happening seemingly everywhere. Yes, public buildings and typefaces and etc are uglier than they used to be. That's not because our aesthetic standards changed; it's because we financialized and technologized the entire economy and made it impossible to make an honest living as a plasterworker, typesetter, designer, etc. Those old buildings are beautiful because they were made by human beings who were allowed to develop their skills and aesthetic preferences outside of a completely efficientized, marketized, computerized system.
When we RETVRN by telling the machine to output different aesthetic preferences, it will emit a cheap simulacra of the beauty of the past. Which imo is infinitely more depressing than any of the modern crap we have now. Think Kentucky suburb McMansions, everywhere, forever. That's what these guys want.
I think flushing out Public Sans as well as creating a Serif variant (akin to Roboto Serif) would be a great move. It really needs to fill in a lot of the international characters for more broad use, but probably enough for general use in Govt documents.
That said, for print, I think serif is a better option.
Because our markets are no longer efficient at allocating capital. These companies are too large, they don't compete. They can buy a company for half a billion and write it off a few months later, at the whim of someone deranged by hype. How many businesses in competitive markets can afford to do that?
But, when we get to these scales, where a very small number of individuals controls large amounts of social resources, it becomes a society-wide efficiency issue. Solitary individuals cannot allocate capital as well as large collections of people can. A thriving startup ecosystem is better than a single person picking winners and losers.
When you have individuals controlling huge swathes of resources, you get weird outcomes, like the Metaverse or WeWork or the Line. These things are monumental wastes of human effort, and they naturally arise when the distribution of wealth becomes too extreme. And it gets worse and worse when they begin suppressing private enterprise by leveraging the state, which is certainly already happening (see: tech execs paying $1m to stand behind DJT at the inauguration).
I don't care about the individual "The 1%". I don't care who they are, how craven and greedy, how creepy, how ugly, how disgusting. I don't care whether they are going to heaven or hell. What I care about is that they are burning vast amounts of human potential on things that don't benefit anyone at all. They're wasting huge amounts of time. I think about this every time I have to wait 3h on hold with a huge, bloated, inefficient corporation, whose owner spends a quarter of their time schmoozing in Washington D.C: a startup should be there competing, preventing me from wasting my time!
reply