The quality of HN has decreased considerably over the last 4 years or so, much like the rest of society sadly. Posts like this, to me, should just be removed. There is little valid discussion, it's drowned out by nonsense and political pandering. Posts like these are no better than r/politics or r/conservative.
HN used to be above this drivel, and actually had thoughtful replies. I hope dang and company push for a less politics focused approach because it's degrading here, rapidly. I have flagged this post, but I doubt it will do much.
I won't doubt your experience. I'm sure it has happened, but I've been in some pretty high up areas as well.
> My take is while not always the case, the higher level the committee approving the consulting spend (because even that choice/decision is diffused), the more frequently this is involved.
It sounds this has more to do with the clout of the individual than it does "oh well mckinsey said this."
> what I call “decision insurance” (“but our consultants confirmed this made sense!”) so decision accountability is laundered, everything makes much more sense.
I hear this all the time but it sounds like an urban myth.
I highly doubt someone is not getting fired because the consultants they hired fucked up. They're still responsible for the business. I think consultants can help more with the "we need to do X, Y, Z" with consultant's report backing it up.
I think, by and large, you look at polls, and set your expectations. You say "I expected the republicans to be crushed, they weren't, so it must be true that the democrats didn't perform well." I think a lot of democrats did the same - but it wasn't truly realistic.
I'd say the republicans were beaten pretty badly. I think they are at their worst point in decades. They managed to get their largest turnout ever, and didn't even flip the house. States that were red for decades flipped blue. And if the two runoffs are losses, that is a devastating blow, losing all levels of the federal government. 50% is not 50% without the white house.
I don't think the memory of Trump will go away that quickly. This election mobilized a lot of young voters, and now that they've seen their vote got rid of him, they will be more motivated to vote again for more progressive agendas, or against more radical right wing ones.
I don't think the rural republicans (Which is really where trump got most of his boost, anyway), will come out the same for a Mitt Romney. They want the guy who isn't afraid to tell it "like it is", be anti-BLM, etc. That is a major rift in the republican party that will further impact who they put up as candidates - and more rejection from the suburbs and cities will come.
Who set a record for votes. He wasn't unpopular, he was the 2nd most popular candidate ever.
People like to undersell how well the democrats did in 2018 and in 2020. Georgia going blue, Arizona going blue, and the blue wall getting rebuilt...it's pretty impressive. They kept the house, and may yet still win the senate.
The districts are already stacked against democrats as is. Republicans won't gain much from redistricting.
No over dramatization - sorry if I struck a nerve with such an innocuous comment.
> What I am implying is that starvation is dramatically lower in percentage then it was in the past.
You aren't implying it. You're directly stating it. This isn't in debate, what's in debate is if, even if the percentage is better, more total suffer. Is that actually a moral good?
It's like saying "we've killed 90% of your cancer cells, but weren't able to kill all of them. The cancer will still kill you, but we killed a greater percentage of it! yay us!" It doesn't make sense in certain scenarios and is only helpful as a delta - plus, to even suggest that we have less poverty than ever in history is unsubstantiated with fact.
I get your point - but when we're talking about suffering, the amount matters. It doesn't matter if we reduce pollution if we're still causing global warming - things may be better, but that doesn't mean they're good enough.
> A peasant in the dark ages had to deal with starvation, black death or invaders. These were actual threats in the sense that an average conversation will be like: "Last week Martha got her head chopped off by a barbarian and Bob died of starvation. "
To even suggest starvation doesn't exist is...I don't even have the words.
Did you hear about the Nigerian farmers who were executed last week by Boko Haram? Not very different than a barbarian raiding a small village.
More people live in poverty now than ever before. The overall percentage may have decreased, but the sheer number is greater. Technically more people suffer now than ever in history. It doesn't matter that there's more. This is just an example of statistics hiding how bad things truly are.
The scale is greater now than it was back then. Now, a city of millions can be obliterated in an instant. Now, we can see the effects of global warming and how it can decimate the world's food supply.
We have more knowledge now than ever before - and before, ignorance was bliss.
HN used to be above this drivel, and actually had thoughtful replies. I hope dang and company push for a less politics focused approach because it's degrading here, rapidly. I have flagged this post, but I doubt it will do much.