Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | wallace_f's comments login

Is attacking Grewnwald's character relevant here?

Anyways, if it is, Greenwald has been one of the most outspoken critics of many aspects of the Russiagate accusations against Trump(1); and in consideration of your aforementioned "liberal agenda" of his, it hardly makes any sense at all to label him on this hand a Trump defender--as he has been accused of--and on the other a 'liberal commie.'

1-https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w...


I'm not attacking "Greenwald's character". I just observe that he uses his role of a journalist to push particularly hard for a leftist political agenda.

Greenwald has been criticizing Russiagate, but he's certainly not supporting Trump. He's very far from being a Trump defender if you've been following his work.


From a distance, to me it's interesting to read about fears of the FBI snooping in our phones and email, and see how quickly the discussion jolts to how immoral (or amoral) corporations are because one of them is not completely defying government.


(part of) how we mitigate unfettered power is pitting powerful entities against each other. the answer isn't "government!" or "law enforcement!" or "corporations!" but rather more even distributions of power, and lacking that, powerful entities in opposition.

that we also rationalize the actions of a corporation (to understand them) doesn't necessarily imply complicity. lacking more evenly distributed power, we should want apple to be pitted against google, the fbi, and the chinese government to funnel apple towards a privacy-oriented stance that it might not otherwise have.

incidentally, (many) americans vehemently support 2nd amendment rights as a way to have some semblance of power in an otherwise overwhelming power structure.


Sadly, it reminds me of all the stories of authorities using databases for stalking women they're interested in, or people they have a personal grudge against, or whatever.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/11/sergeant-used-police-databases...

https://theweek.com/speedreads/651668/hundreds-police-office...

https://apnews.com/699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43/ap-acros...


This is a valid concern, it aleady happens and nothing stops if from happening in the future


>Larry Fink sent a strongly worded letter about how companies needed to make society better

On the topic of executives needing to improve society, Fink here was important in the creation of the MBS market.


There’s nothing inherently wrong with mortgage-backed securities (they exist today!). In fact, there’s a lot right with them - they allow specialization by firms within the mortgage process and participation by investors with various risk profiles. It’s applying the Unix mindset of specialized composable functions to mortgages.

The 2008 crisis happened because MBSs became a bubble - investors stopped performing diligence (and risk models were crappy), so securitizers started packaging up crap, underwriting standards dropped, etc.


If you're familiar with the market and the dogma at the time, the idea was that securitization used mathematical techniques to actually reduce risk, and these were being sold as such. What's wrong was after this bubble popped, the taxpayer was on the hook for the socialized bailout, while the temporary profits were privatized. As such, while people like Fink may not have seen this through from start to finish, their ignorance or unwillingness to blow the whistle on something as destructive as this calls into question--in my opinion--their competence or earnestness in indicting others to effectively do what he should have done.


While there were definitely a bunch of shady things going on (e.g. Paulson helping Goldman negotiate a 100% payout of AIGs CDS obligations) during the crisis, the treasury actually made a profit of $15.3bn on TARP.


Last decade was terrible for housing construction: https://reason.com/2019/12/23/the-2010s-were-a-terrible-deca...


Wonder how/if this correlates with current trends of newer generations preferring to move from suburbs back to cities. Maybe it is becoming more advantageous to renovate an older home in the city than to build new in a suburb?


I think it's also because if you're a company that wants to make money doing real estate related activity, it's easier and more profitable to just buy existing buildings and sit on them than build new ones. This is a recent trend, and home building companies do still exist but...

"Between 2011 and 2017, some of the world’s largest private-equity groups and hedge funds ... spent a combined $36 billion on more than 200,000 homes in ailing markets across the country. In one Atlanta zip code, they bought almost 90 percent of the 7,500 homes sold between January 2011 and June 2012; today, institutional investors own at least one in five single-family rentals in some parts of the metro area"

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/singl...


Interesting graph. Some of it is that there was a big drop in any construction after about 2008. So any ramp in the 2010s was starting from a very low level. But the rate of the recovery, while ramping upwards, hasn't ramped up at a particularly fast pace.


Physics has made a lot of progress in social justice and representation and these kinds of comments putting down "her point of view" is the type of toxic masculinity that will send us back 100 years.


Would you please stop taking HN threads into ideological flamewar? This was a clear violation of the site guidelines, which say: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

We've had to ask you a ton of times not to post like this. If you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22034356 and marked it off-topic.


Just out of curiosity, how was op supposed to phrase that sentence in order to keep from being toxic? Was it just the pronoun that was offensive, or was it just having any critique at all?

Disagreement and critique is a positive thing if it's done with respect. Handling someone with kid-gloves is demeaning.


See below comments, particularly shkmmo's. My comment above was socratic irony.


I don’t think physics operates on anything resembling a social-justice system - nothing like the parent comment is going to send us backwards any amount of time in the field, but an attitude that bars commentary might stagnate us for a long time.


>I don’t think physics operates on anything resembling a social-justice system

Physicists are chosen within the Academic-Governmental Complex, and as such physicists are chosen according to its preferences. Maybe this is a big problem? It's not just with respect to selection based on gender, race or socioeconomics. Have you read Paul Graham's Lesson to Unlearn, about the adverse incentives and maligned merits which academia chooses for: http://www.paulgraham.com/lesson.html

Personally, I just hate it when people praise Academia (I see it often with Wall Steeet, too) as being a shining example of social justice like its some gift-wrapped paper around a rotten core.

>an attitude that bars commentary might stagnate us for a long time.

I agree. Now watch comments such as these incite downvotes and inflammatory responses because they question assumptions and make people feel uncomfortable.


You aren’t getting my position - results drive the field, whether those results come from a tenured professor and his team of PhD students, or some kid in his garage with no formal training.

Physicists are not “chosen”. They are built and trained.

There’s no conspiracy here.


These argumentative tactics are of poor conduct, and seem to be clearly made in bad faith.

Someone who disagrees with you is just someone who has a different opinion, and that does not make it appropriate for you to attack them.

In other words, what you are doing is wrapping your argument in argumentative tactics. Instead of acknowledging another user has a different conclusion than you, you assert that they "don't get your position." In this context, all you did was reiterate your disagreement, and so the personal attack comes across as either a put down or an statement of arrogance.

At the end of your statement about physics being a meritocracy, you again use argumentative tactics, suggesting that any disagreement is a conspiracy.

First of all, the poor results of physics as a field is not a conspiracy. And you do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to criticize the field of physics. That is just ridiculous. Did you even take a moment to look at the Paul Graham post I referenced? Something tells me you are more interested in broadcasting and arguing about your world view than you are in engaging in though-provoking discussion.

But finally, social justice in academia is blatantly obvious. For example, affirmative action awards up to a few standaDs deviations of promotion in rank alone in just undergraduate admissions. Also, the author of the OP has written about social justice in the field herself. It is just both dishonorable and disingenuous for you to ignore the truth and be so argumentative.


That statement would read as arrogance from anyone.


It isn't a throwaway comment, it is reference to writing and work she has been doing for quite a while. It does come across as fairly arrogant without the context of all her other writing and work. With that context it comes across to me as more of an expression of frustration.


Yeah, but if you've followed Hossenfelders writhing you know that it's been wobbling along the line between relevant critique and pure clickbait for over a year now.

This is likely the first time I've seen any claim that she has a good idea of what to do instead (she's had the idea before, but not claimed it to be a good one as I recall), the past year it's been mostly about how all other physicists are stupid... and it's not like this supposedly "superior" strategy has yielded any great advanced for in her work.


I feel like my whole life is a series of addictions designed to prevent me from drudging through the extreme anger and sadness I have in my life. At least, luckily, I don't like to drink so excessively.


I've been there. Have you figured out how to work through those deep seated emotional states?


No. Yes? That's what I mean, my whole life is a way of dealing with them by using escape mechanisms. HN is one of them. Lesser one.


Yep. I can't be totally sure the extent to which I've unpacked my issues versus improved my ability to mask them. I'm positive I do both, but a great deal of good fortune means that I'll have to wait for the inevitable dark times to find out.


Very true. In fact, I doubt few people would be content being alone with themselves and their thoughts and nothing to distract them.


I reread Burroughs when I get like that. From Wild Boys, in the chapter "Dead Child":

I held out my hands no more power left in them head against a tree it was cold on my eyes moon that night solid I could touch almost couldn't get the leg was broken and teeth tore past the bones at me begging for help pictures all cut up knife had fallen I lay there my pieces moved and shifted against a tree I spit up from my stomach green when day came and mist steamed up to the top of the high tree just under the leaves at the top and looking down I could see my body lying there the leg all twisted and the face caved in lips drawn back showing teeth I could see and hear but I couldn't talk without a throat without a tongue sun moon and stars on the face down there worms in the leg weeds growing through the bones.


>“To comply with government regulations, PayPal is required to review certain transactions.”

For mentioning the word Iran. Terrifying.

I guess the best to hope for is that the Institute for Justice or the ACLU pick this up and sue for their free speech rights. But even then, the only consequence would be taxpayers burdened to pay up.



I am aware. Even going back in history, I find most are surprised to know even Abraham Lincoln really went after journalists and the press.

Anyways, I don't know why I was downvoted. Hopefully not because people disagree with that hope.


I don't see how you could make the case that PayPal donation messages are different than FB posts or tweets, in that the platform has every right to remove whatever content they want. I also doubt the financial industry regulations are caught up and can weigh in on this issue.


Paypal has the right to, not the government.


[flagged]


Mentioning the word "Iran" is not, in any sense, terrorism.


While you are entirely correct, there are clearly those who disagree and support the association.


Free speech doesn’t apply to private entities.


These filters exist due to legal requirements (and paypal has gotten into legal trouble for not filtering Iran-related transactions well enough in the past), so it's not quite that simple


There’s no legal requirement to filter transactions with this message:

> “Thanks for all your excellent work and especially the Gray Zone’s coverage of the murder of Soleimani and war with Iran. You fellows are so insightful and brilliant.”

There’s zero indication that this might be an Iran-related transaction.


US healthcare is corrupt and inefficient. It's not only a debate about who should pay for it. Your comment suggests changing the latter would fix the problem with cost, which surely has a lot to do with the former.


It always makes me chuckle when people cite health care being inefficient as a reason to let the government run it.

(Not saying you're doing that, you just reminded me of it)


What is chuckle worthy about the government running healthcare? Plenty of countries have good government run healthcare system. Several studies have found that patients on Medicare are generally more satisfied with their healthcare than patients with private insurance. Government can run health care.


The us has low governmental capacity and lower trust then most other nations. We don't have a clear view of sovereignty between state and federal and have the most active judicial system in the world.


It might be cultural. I think it is. Being unsure or humble is not valued as much as it should be.


It is valued more in more consequential fields. What cosmologists believe never has any legitimate effect on public policy, except to the degree that they command budgets for telescopes, accelerators, and detector arrays.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: