It accepted unfettered capitalism in a very fundamental way. Once you make it axiomatic that taxes should always be low, that the private sector is always better, and that massive inequality is just fine, you basically renounce all meaningful tools to fight for the little guy.
Plus, you can only triangulate effectively if there are two radical sides to play off of. Once your policies effectively disqualify one of those positions, you're left alone to face the other radical group - and they now have no incentive to compromise. Which is exactly what happened over the following decades.
A couple of things happened. One, the Supreme Court handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, and not Al Gore.
Bush did not continue the policies of Clinton. He cut taxes, which increased the deficit, which made interest rates rise, which made the subprime market collapse, which resulted in the worst recession since the great depression.
What gave him political cover to do this was 9/11. He took the opportunity to spend Trillions on oil wars, which we fought for the next 20 years, and which accomplished absolutely nothing.
The result was that for the first time in American history, the next generation had it worse than the previous generation. When I graduated from college, my biggest problem was choosing which stock option package to accept. When my son graduated from college, his biggest problem was deciding which meals to skip to afford his insulin.
Thank goodness Obamacare fixed my son's insulin problem. And Obama wasn't able to get rid of the deficit, but he at least put it on a path where it was shrinking relative to the size of the economy.
I can't bear to rehearse what the Trump administration has done. Absolutely incalculable damage to the budget, the deficit, civil discourse, our international goodwill, and to the rule of law.
It's hard to even convince people how bad it is, because nobody under the age 40 even really understands what a functional government and economy looks like.
The human mind is the most beautiful powerful and yet fragile thing. Without it's quirks humanity would have been robbed of so much. But the suffering can be very very painful. It's a beautiful ride we are all on, I know it's hackernews but remember to be nice to people! Ya just never know what someone is going through
There have been a number of studies that specifically linked advanced "artistic" personalities with increased risk of psychosis and other breaks from reality.
I had never heard of Toki Pona, and I find the project amazing!
The only other invented language I have heard of is esperanto. Which I have always been interested in, but never studied.
My heart goes out to the author of this language, I hope they are able to find their way back. There is certainly a community that hopes to help and support them.
This is much more than many distressed people have to hope for, and I hope they are able to find solace in that support.
>The name-calling and vitriol of typical internet arguments doesn't belong here.
But his false accusations towards me belong here? So it's OK for me to be attacked, but not OK for me to respond back in equal fashion?
Also, I didn't call anyone names, "clueless" and "obtuse" are adjectives describing a person's observed behavior, not names, and I was very generic saying "some people" to not target and offend anyone specific since I believe in mutual respect.
Because if the person wanted to argue in good faith, he could have just said "I can't believe this, please post a source and go into detail", but he didn't, he immediately jumped to a personal attack with false accusations, in 100% bad faith. And you think I'm the one blame here, for simply responding in kind? Please.
He was being petty, but I wouldn't use the terms "name-calling" or "vitriol".
It's a very bad look, to put it lightly, to throw around the terms 'clueless', 'obtuse', and 'useless', and to tell people they will be replaced. In defense of anything, not just AI.
Edit: Interestingly, the parent was edited to be even more hostile since I commented (usually it's the opposite).
Making false accusations is more than just "being petty".
>It's a very bad look
HN isn't a beauty pageant and I'm not running for office to value looks over facts. I call things as they are, no BS.
>to throw around the terms 'clueless', 'obtuse', and 'useless'
Then people shouldn't act 'clueless', 'obtuse', and be 'useless' if they wouldn't like to be called out for that. If someone see themselves as matching those descriptions, that then that's on them, nothing I can do about it.
>and to tell people they will be replaced
Well, if people can't do a google/LLM search before attacking people with venom, they ARE useless, and will 100% be replaced, since employers have no use for toxic people who can't use modern tools in the labor force.
And this isn't an accusation or something, this is simply the truth on how the labor market works. That's why there are so many unemployed/NEETs/homeless people. I don't want them to be replaced and unemployed, but they are/will be through their own actions/inactions. Again, nothing I can do about that, this is just how it is, and I'm just calling it out.
That the Luddites were acting on principle doesn't mean wouldn't use the term.
Also, if you want to 'go there' you could find a much better word than 'immature' to say what you're trying to say.
The OPs posture is not tonally arrogant, but it's it's definitely intellectually arrogate.
The OP claiming heritage of the 'Golden Era' which is a dramatic, egoic romanticization.
To place one's 'own story at primacy' above all others, insinuating that 'his skills' are those which are 'true and relevant' and that those using new tools are 'lesser' or 'not substantial' , and also grossly myopic to the truly great Engineering that's going on ... is arrogant and insulting frankly.
We can empathize with having to yield to a changing world, or being too out of scope to even fathom the 'new tech', but that's very different with saying that 'Frank Sinatra was the Only Great Singer, those that came after him had not talent'.
If it were the case, then fine, but it's obviously not. AI is a legitimate advancement that narrow minded people are struggling to fathom, and it's coming out in some ugly ways.
A true creator would probably take magnanimous position that after having made their contribution, they are sad to not be able to participate in what is maybe an even more substantial era of progress, and all of the wonders that will come of it.
Good gripes - we're all about to have robots in our homes (!) probably within 5-15, we're witnesses Sci Fi unfold in front of us ...
Sometimes, but not nearly as reliably as a static analyzer. But I'm assuming the unstated point you are sarcastically implying is "you don't need SonarQube" - maybe you're trying to say something else.
reply