Then I guess it's a good thing men are still well (overly?) represented among world leaders, CEOs, etc. -- I'm not sure how anyone can claim there are no male role models in a world with 100% male US presidents (for instance).
Not really: In my daydreams Nova becomes the premier JS engine in the world and takes the crown from V8. If V8 went all in and basically just copied all of Nova... I'd probably still develop Nova, as I don't want to work with C++ that much.
If V8 copied all of Nova AND adopted Rust, I might consider laying Nova to rest and going into V8 development. But I'd probably also be really angry at V8 just taking all of Nova's good ideas and peddling them off as their own without crediting Nova. So probably I'd still keep developing Nova while stewing in my anger and inability to do anything about it :)
I hope Nova can be a spark that ignites the JavaScript world into a bit of a renaissance with some of its ideas, but the point is not to burn bright and burn out. The point is to burn bright and stay lit.
I think we're more like Pythagoras: some useful theory about numbers, taken way too far and became an actual religion[0] listening to the Delphic[1] Oracle[2].
[0] Tabs or spaces? Vi or emacs? Is the singularity the rapture of the nerds, with Roko's Basalisk as the devil and ${insert name here according to personal taste} as the antichrist? SOLID or move fast and break things?
I read an interesting article recently about Thiel's, Musk's and Sacks' common career paths, views and ambitions.
One point that stuck out for me was how all three of them had spent a significant part of their childhood in Apartheid-era South Africa, as part of the white ruling class (so learned of Apartheid as a good thing or even had family that belonged to the ruling class). This is well-known for Musk, but I think less so for Thiel and Sacks.
Seems to me that gives their ultra-libertarian, "anti-woke", pro-inequality views another context.
I'm pretty sure OP has more context, and that was "the last drop". Anyway, it is a big red flag without any context. But yes, it also could be ok, if that is a very particular important detail.
Steve Jobs knew that details matter (not just high level objectives). They key is to pick the details that actually matter and avoid focusing on those that do not.
Women who are otherwise going to die because of a medical condition might want to have an abortion at 9 months (for example). The idea of being "for abortion at 9 months" just means allowing those women to live (instead of having to have their babies whether or not it kills them).
I actually think we should ban polling, too. Make the election about getting the message out and convincing people, not about a horse race between two numbers.
In a one-turn voting system, polls are very useful as a kind of "turn zero". The important point is that one should always tell the poller who they actually want to vote for (a possible third candidate) so that if this candidate actually stands a chance it can be seen in the poll and be voted for. In the actual election, if you see your third candidate has no chance you can vote for someone that can actually win.
Changing the voting system seems much more important than trying to mess with the polls. However, regulating polls to enforce their trustworthiness is probably a good idea since they may have so much power.
In France the presidential election is two-turns and even then I think we need polls since there are so many candidates in the first turn diluting votes.
The US is really a two-turn voting system. The first turn is the primaries.
It's quite different from the French presidential election, but the first round is open to all candidates. A non-aligned candidate would have to formally join a party to run for the nomination, but that's a matter of paperwork, not ideology. If they win office, they owe the party no obligations at all.
The French system may well be preferable, but the American system really does have more opportunities for non-aligned candidates than people realize. They tend to dismiss the primaries as unimportant, but they really are a first round of voting -- that's why they're called "primary". Anybody who wants influence can start there, rather than jumping straight into the general election.
I would love to have ranked choices as a voting system in France. It tends to promote moderate candidates but because it would change the outcome of elections so significantly it's probably almost impossible to set up (all parties that would lose from it would go all-in in opposing such a change).
Could be a good idea, but I suspect asking people what they think about political candidates enjoys such core first amendment protection that banning it would require amending the Constitution. And practically, nobody in power will want to ban them because they're a tool for staying in power. Same reason that we'll probably always have a two party system.
If we only get to pick one thing, I'd much rather see us harmonize voting times between states so we don't have the election results rolling in before some people have voted.
> Make the election about getting the message out and convincing people, not about a horse race between two numbers
Polling helps elites and voters alike allocate resources. Biden was replaced in part due to polls. Similarly, if a race in my state becomes unexpectedly competitive, I’ll at attention more than I would have absent that signal.
Is that a good thing? The more you complicate the election process, particularly the more meta-information you add - such as predictions, polls, early results - the more it drives people to play silly meta-games, trying to "vote strategically", instead of just expressing their preferences.
I feel this violates some fundamental assumptions about the democratic process - when most people play the metagame, the result is no longer expressing real, object-level preferences of the people. At the very least, it encourages "us vs. them" thinking instead of focusing on improving lives.
> more you complicate the election process, particularly the more meta-information you add - such as predictions, polls, early results - the more it drives people to play silly meta-games
Agree with the former. Not the latter. Our elections are complicated because the process is complicated. To the degree I most appreciate polling, it's around things like ballot measures.
> when most people play the metagame, the result is no longer expressing real, object-level preferences of the people
In a democracy, yes. (One of the many reasons pure democracies don't work.) In a republic, consensus forming is fine.
You specifically mentioned the FDA as being a problem; are you suggesting that approval in general is the problem, and no approval should be required anywhere?
