Can you give an example? I’m assuming you’re not referring to this Netflix competitor as an example of something equivalent to making it illegal for non-whites to eat at certain restaurants.
> In short- the best way to help Black people in America isn't to perpetuate our separate identity, but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.
And you think the source of this power and significance is...media streaming companies?
I didn't really see anything in the design I saw as exclusionary!
> because we appreciate the HN community taking time to hear our story, for a short period of time, we’re making some of our original black TV shows available for free on our site
Like thousands of business before them they're marketing to an audience but it seems like they're more than happy to build a broader audience.
"divisiveness inherent in the title" seems wildly overblown to me. Isn't identifying an underserved audience and marketing to them like a cornerstone of business? Do you feel that hair products marketed toward Black people are divisive? Subscription boxes for millennials? Shoes for moms?
Sufficiently advanced robots would leave a lot more of value behind than a nuke which makes deploying them much less costly to the person that wants to actually control the territory.
I think this is a good analysis and I think too few people consider it this way. I'm not convinced that changes in culture are driving this as much as changes in how information is shared and spread and I'm disappointed how few people, even on Hacker News, seem interested in this angle.
Consider that maybe people agree that being confronted with challenging ideas and perspectives is valuable but they don't find the same value in Jerry Seinfeld's comedy as they do in, say, a lecture by someone with radical beliefs.
I don't understand why Damore is the hill people are always trying to die on. He didn't publish that in the marketplace of ideas. He sent it to his coworkers, using company resources, on company time. Your workplace has never been a free speech bastion.
Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever so I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.
> I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or the world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had any accurate idea either.
> Or because you think any of those politicians actually have a solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, that's why they came out on different sides of the issue based on party lines.
Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about what "better for the USA" meant that led to them making reasonably rational but different decisions? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not sure your assumption that all three of those presidents have a worse understanding of this issue than you do is justified.
I think you're mostly right, but his writing never says or really even directly implies that it's relevant specifically to founders. That would be very easy to do, but by not doing so he lends an air or universality and depth to the whole thing that makes it feel more insightful to people. The examples about startups are interpreted not as specifics but as examples of universal truths when as you point out they almost certainly are not.
> If the purpose of writing is to be read and to provoke thought and action
There's a LOT more to good writing than that, and in any event it's not that big of an insult to say someone isn't as good a writer as Bertrand Russell.
Is this really the type of thing where an anonymous author can't have any credibility? It's an analysis of bitcoin and its energy use not a claim about personal experience.
Yeah that's a good point. And I may be a little bit guilty of scapegoating Fauci for the official response generally. But while that full explanation was out there in March I think of Feburary as being the most confusing time when advice not to wear a mask was most prevalent. From a CDC post at the end of February: "Only healthcare professionals caring for COVID-19 patients, people who are sick with COVID-19, or in some cases people caring for patients who are sick with COVID-19 need precautions like a facemask to help limit their risk of spreading COVID-19."
If felt like we lived through four ages in as many months at the beginning of last year.
I think you've confused cultures where people have a relatively high tolerance for discomfort because they consider it to be worth it (the examples you gave) and culture where people simply do not care about others' discomfort (how Stallman's colleagues describe him).
All those cultures have a goal in mind when inflicting discomfort. Does Stallman?
I'm shocked I haven't seen any journalists questioning Fauci on why he chose to lie. Was that a decision made under pressure from some political entity in the government? Does he believe part of his job is to determine what the public can be trusted to know?
Given how much credibility and trust matter to managing a public health crisis it feels weird for the press to be so uninterested. Maybe they worry covering that would come across as questioning "science" at a dangerous time?