Yea this is a not a good take imo. I went to school in a district where every school got the same funding per student, but the schools in the wealthy neighborhoods were way more successful than the ones in bad neighborhoods. You can point to fundraising efforts, but after looking at the balance sheet the students with a high percentage of poor students actually ended up with more funding per student because of federal grants to schools that had students under the poverty line. The only real difference was that parents were more involved at the rich school and all of them punished their kids when the teacher said they needed discipline. In this district at least all the schools had the baseline level of funding they needed and past that more money didnt seem to make a huge difference.
> There are plenty of good kids and good parents in many poor communities.
I went to school in a poor district. Pretty much all the students at my elementary school were poverty adjacent. Most of them were good kids, but that didnt really matter because the 10% who werent often ruined it for everyone else. This is a one bad apple spoils the bunch scenario, so the incentive is to make it as hard as possible for even 1 bad apple to be in the school. Of course there are plenty of bad apples among rich kids too, but as you can imagine the politics is different there.
Very few people will pay mathematicians to produce as if they were making art. The big problem here is that counting proofs is how mathematicians historically have created legitimacy for the universities they work for. Mathematicians in the past 100 years have been paid solely for the prestige they generate, the work itself is irrelevant to the university. If the prestige signal dies universities will spend less on math departments. Every math professor will be expected to teach undergrads as well as a stable of grad students. That’s the value they are actually able to provide to universities.
> The big problem here is that counting proofs is how mathematicians historically have created legitimacy for the universities they work for
This is a really interesting point. This is almost analogous to a metric in software engineering like lines of code which is a proxy for something we actually want to measure.
In a way, the SOTA model providers are cargo culting what appears to be what mathematics is.
In my experience H1B workers are consistently exceptional. At big tech most employees are pretty good so it doesn’t stand out, but at random fortune 500s tech teams are often led by h1bs who are clearly the most competent employees on the department even though they usually aren’t involved in management. My experience from around 5 Fortune 500 non tech companies. These companies would have big problems if they couldn’t recruit exceptional foreign workers
And I disagree. There are not enough locals who are able and willing to fill these roles at non prestigious non tech companies in omaha. If the H1Bs leave these companies I dont think they would be able to realistically replace them. Obviously they could find someone to take the job, I just think theyd be worse at it. Worse enough to materially change outcomes.
> There are not enough locals who are able and willing to fill these roles at non prestigious non tech companies in omaha.
Maybe those companies pay shit or offer shit work conditions?
> If the H1Bs leave these companies I dont think they would be able to realistically replace them.
What about "muh free market supply/demand capitalism"?
Because when a company can't find a worker to accept their jobs, then the government gives them a foreign worker visa to fill it, but when I can't find a job, the government doesn't give me a job or deport a foreign worker to free up a place for me, it's considered my fault or skill issue. So where's the free market capitalism there?
Yea maybe it possible for these firms to poach top talent from tech companies, but I doubt it. Even if they pay the same prestige is worse. And employees at this level are often making a mil at tech companies, non tech just cant afford that. Much more likely that they just move all tech ops overseas.
Well, the market rejected your skills, so that's how free market capitalism works. Get good, then get employed.
But no, people only take the parts of insert preferred political flavor here that they seem beneficial to them and they discard the parts that are not.
There is no such thing as free market absolutism, obviously. "The market" isn't conscious, and didn't do anything. People did - and now people are doing another thing. Prevailing opinion is that this should be regulated, in some form. It already is, in fact. The call is for changing regulation. There's nothing unreasonable about that, as a concept.
And yes, of course people take political stances that are beneficial to them, to their families, to their communities, to their country, in their (maybe wrong) opinion. Again, totally reasonable. You're suggesting that people should pick one of a few political flavors and blindly support every single thing that leans toward that flavor, or else they're a hypocrite? That's ridiculous. In fact, it's what's killing my country.
The part that irks me the most is the hypocrisy I feel around these issues. Essentially, people pick points that are convenient for them and dress them in moral justifications. People take opportunities that helped them or their families, and then demand others not be given these opportunities. People take a stance only when it advantages them personally and quickly discard it when it's not advantageous anymore. Not because they realized it's wrong or they were mistaken, but because now it's not personally useful. People get up a ladder and then quickly pull it up.
I am obviously an idiot since I believe in moral consistency and I believe the the pie is not fixed and that we can increase the welfare of everybody. Such a fool I am.
The fees are larger than the rewards. Most business people pay with credit card is competitive. Retail and restaurants absolutely do pass savings on to customers because of how high competition is.
I am pretty sure that the ellisons care more about US interests than israeli interests. Whether they are selfish is orthogonal to whether they are a foreign adversary. Most people are selfish.
> An anonymous Substack, Oracle For Palestine, written by a group of Oracle employees, claims that that “our leadership’s unquestioning public support for Israel” has led to a failure of the company to address the one-sided political positions taken by top management and the discrimination faced by employees who don’t share the political views of management.
> “In response to legitimate concerns, many of us have been referred to internal mental health resources rather than having those concerns addressed appropriately,” said the group in a post last year.
> For employees, it’s clear: if you’re not for America or Israel, don’t work here
It sounds like internal opposition to Israel is punished at Oracle by systemically discounting their detractors as mentally unwell. You must love Israel at Oracle to avoid this discriminatory action.
The first citation is from anonymous sources, and doesn’t even claim that those people got fired for hating Israel.
The second mentions the US as well. I ask you - should a company want to hire people that are against its home country?
I could only find one publication of someone getting fired in this context, and even that was about this person using the brand logo for their protest as if it was on the company’s behalf. As evidence, none of the other employees participating in the same protest got fired for participating.
Edit: all this is far detached from your claim that you must “love” Israel. At most, don’t recruit the company’s brand to your protest.
A lot of citation needed. Requiring that folks shut the hell up about the current political cause célèbre while at work is not the same as requiring that they "love Israel".
Full quote is "Six years later we are beginning to understand the answer to this question. Machines have ingested the mathematics on the internet and are able to manipulate this data in a coherent way. The Erdős unit distance disproof came about because a machine happened to be an expert both in discrete geometry and class field theory; one rarely finds humans who are simultaneously experts in both"
Yea but that’s not happening. The question is how this compares to the status quo. It could easily be much worse, could easily be a fair bit better too imo. Most people don’t know a thing about who they vote for
reply