lol, the OP is such a classic HN take. "Why doesn't society simply absorb a negative externality created by gambling and add high cost redundancy layers that are otherwise useless" - Not every problem is technical.
If you feel like spending several hundred dollars on a backpack (big if, I know), I can personally vouch for https://www.seventeenthirtythree.com/. It's more or less a one man show, and the guy is very obsessive about sourcing materials & assembly. Advertising is all word-of-mouth as far as I know. I at times feel anxious about his long term prospects for the exact reasons mentioned in the OP article - I have a backpack from this shop that's about a decade old and has zero visible wear. I think, in order to make this business model work, it's pretty much impossible to scale.
"A nation that can’t produce [physical goods] can’t stand."
Based on what evidence?
"And I think part of the issue is that we’ve become lazy. People don’t want to work anymore"
Americans work more hours per week than a majority of countries. Low-paying factory jobs are off-shored because they're low-paying.
"So what’s the answer? Unfortunately, hardship."
You probably should do more research on the subject, and successful onshoring regimes that have been implemented by other countries. If you, for e.g., determine that America needs to produce a certain quantity of semi-conductors to insulate from various natsec risks, there are ways to tackle that problem and usually they don't involve hoping an onshore industry magically appears because you've haphazardly shivved trade across the board.
To you "screaming and yelling" at a private company that still retains agency over it's content moderation is government censorship, but the government's direct censoring of information is not? Partisan politics has a neat way of twisting one's brain up like a pretzel.
Unless the author makes a compelling case about why AI breaks the MAD status-quo between nuclear powers, I will assume that their appeals to NATSEC are an attempt to artificially create moat for their company.
I don't think women are inherently better behaved than men, or that they naturally see themselves as being on the same team. It's that the dynamic where it feels fun or funny to tell a joke that makes a minority in a group feel bad is less likely to arise when there are multiple people who wouldn't be laughing, or perhaps even telling them to give it a rest. Nothing to do with comradery, just the natural tendency of people to not like when their personal identity is threatened in some way.
FWIW, I do think most men with wives and/or daughters are generally thoughtful coworkers, but I'm not sure that's a majority in most tech workplaces, especially the ones that skew young. Thinking back to my own experience, I think, I was blind to a lot of the things I'm speaking about (or perhaps even resistant to the idea of calling it out) until I had a long-term partner.
How much of this opinion has been shaped by actually talking to the women whose experience you are summarizing? And specifically in a context where they'd give you an honest and candid answer, which probably wouldn't involve you saying stuff like "woke mafia" out loud (as it would put regular people on guard and they'd feel less comfortable being honest with you). I don't want you to answer question that literally, because it's the internet and you can just say "I've talked to 1000 women in tech and have summarized their tabulated their experiences in a spreadsheet on my computer." Just honestly take a quiet minute or so and think about it. If the answer is somewhere close to zero, ask yourself why you felt such a high degree of confidence in the assessment you gave above.
I have a first-hand experience once or twice a year that make me stop and think -- if I were a woman in this situation I'd probably be doubting my career path. The example I cited is particularly egregious, but I have seen several other examples from a variety of companies:
- two guys on a zoom call joking that someone's camera was off because they were doing "weird stuff"
- manager from another team drunkenly telling a 24 year old at a holiday party that he would leave his wife for her
- software system named "naggy_wife"
- coworker telling younger coworker to "not get married because you will never have sex again"
I am passing along these anecdotes because they're more easy to empathize with than some of the more general arguments of why it can be hard to succeed in tech as a woman (but they really only tell part of the story). Some of my other anecdotes might also sound closer to things you've seen or heard at the work place, or perhaps it's easier to see how some of these things might have happened without you being aware of them, given their (relative) infrequency and the contexts in which they arise. All of them happened without an HR incident (like, really, should a guy who wrote a system called "naggy-wife" get in trouble? a choice was made like 20 years ago... and maybe the guy doesn't even work there anymore). But you can also see how negative experiences like this can build up and contribute to the relatively common feeling among female engineers that they "don't belong".
One of the smartest people I know almost quit software her first year out of school, because her all-male team spent an afternoon teasing her about how they were going to start a strip poker game and they think she'd be "a natural", or some nonsense like that. Do you think such dynamics introduce barriers to female participation in tech? Do you think focusing solely at the "bottom of the funnel" could still result in a lack of diversity if the "top of the funnel" isn't pleasant for certain demographics to work? Do you think such an event would've occurred without pushback on a team with more than 1 woman? Do you think what you consider to be "common sense" is shaped very much by your personal experience, and that you'd have no "common sense" intuition for how frequently things like this happen because it doesn't personally impact you?
Do you think a movie where the main character is driven to madness at the site of a Native American burial ground/frontier wars is not purposefully introducing this subtext or do you not like the language that the author used?
Why do you think the goal of modern art should necessarily be to appeal to as many people as possible - or when you say "universally bad" do you mean to say "perceived as bad to people who aren't immersed in art"? Marvel movies and McDonalds will always exist for normal people.