This kind of non-answer is exactly what leads to far-right parties getting more followers.
Tax paying citizens who want their concerns addressed absolutely LOVE hearing that "Ackchyually, your problem doesn't exist and is all in your head".
P.S. - I have no skin in the game regarding EU immigration policies, just making an honest observation about engaging with people who might have opposing views.
I approached it as a discussion on Hacker News, and I think my implicit assumption (which can be challenged!) is that taking a structured, logical approach benefits us all. When I saw what I perceive as a logical fallacy or assumption that takes us on an unproductive path, intended or not, I called it out.
In other venues, different approach may be more applicable.
To your other point, in case it wasn't clear:
* I absolutely do not think there's no problem, or that it's in anybody's head. I think there are a LOT of problems!
* At the same time, I strongly think that not-nice, dishonest people are working very very hard, very very consistently, to create an image that somehow immigrants are the root causes of these problems.
This has happened myriad times in history, and may sadly be repeating itself. The only answer I ever have for this is, to your point, a non-answer: it's education and information. I think most people propagating immigration as root of all evil are fairly aware that mathematically, socially, statistically, philosophically, logically, this is not supported. It's just intentional fallacy after intentional fallacy, starting with the "Lump of Labor Fallacy". It's clear on its face that if I had 100 people with 100 jobs yesterday, bringing 10 more people won't just magically take jobs without also creating/generating jobs! So I'm happy to discuss immigration problems at any length - but again, I think it's an intentional distraction. To your point, there ARE real problems, of housing and equality and prices and job market, and bad people are trying to make us think they're caused by immigrants, whether for personal profit or because they themselves are part of the actual root cause :-/
I find your response insulting, and as the other poster called you out, this is exactly why people are flocking to Afd.. that the “elite” dont take their problems seriously.
Im in Denmark and we have tried throwing money and ressources at the issue for 50 years, integration effort after integration effort, and for us the issue isnt money or jobs, we are a rich country with very little unemployment, the issue is gangs, violence, rape, where immigrants are far ahead of anyone..
They should really hold a group discussion then and talk about how they present themselves to the outgroup.
Because in my experience talking with them, most don't, and the vast majority are anti-federal organizations of any kind. And these have been multiple discussions over the course of 20+ years.
That’s because unlike other political factions that treat politics as a team sport and prioritize group identity, libertarians tend to be free thinkers and have their own opinions and views.
I can predict virtually every single opinion a self-labeled "libertarian" has about the world.
Now granted, among the people who are actually free-thinkers and have their own opinions, you will find many libertarian-adjacent views, but I've found that those people do not refer to themselves as libertarians.
Based on how long corporate email chains go (without clearly accountable people), you're 50/50 on waiting for the feature to get fixed versus the feature becoming deprecated in a few years.
Making the ultimate visibility tool isn't just helpful to me as a newcomer. It may be useful to many veterans and people who haven't had the time to make this tool for themselves.
But I'm also somewhat biased towards laziness/observation.
> What I’m particularly curious about is what the “endgame” of this looks like. Initially, I imagine we’ll start with LLMs on the consumer side debating LLMs on the service side
More data centers, less low-end lawyers, probably more pressure on the judicial system.
Persistence hunting isn't just running 25km to catch 1 deer.
It may also involve multiple scout runs (perhaps 50km or longer) to find where the deer are after the current local deer supply is exhausted. It may also involve moving the entire tribe unit to a location 100-200km away from the current one, which would involve people less fit than tribe hunters.
> It's certainly possible that persistence hunting happened to some degree, and it's a fun idea so it really caught on in popular consciousness, but the actual evidence is limited.
Well, the problem is that evidence for just about everything related to our existence from before the glacial period ended is very limited due to a population bottleneck.
But there's no reason to assume that our ancestors did not use every tool available at their disposal to survive, one of the tools being persistence hunting, which we are still very good at, despite there not being evolutionary pressure to be selected for for the last 7-8 thousand years.
It absolutely is a real thing. You don't get to declare that an existing word with more than 2000 years of history doesn't exist.
It may not exist in the Bay Area or in whatever subset of parameters you invented, but it absolutely exists and is something to strive towards.
> The idea that simply "talented" workers should rule just seems to speed run towards fascist aims.
Complete non-sequitur with 0 evidence.
> How do you consider which workers are worth more than others? If you do to the wrong school are you suddenly worth less? Do you think society will have certain preferences?
You decide just like everything else. Based on context and some objective measurements. It's not a perfect system, because sometimes measurements can become the goal, rather than the underlying objective, but it's the best system we have.
One knows a guy who runs local meet up, and offers them a spot to talk about it. Present at the meet up is a tech funder who catches them afterwards, and wants to meet for lunch to talk about this cool idea...
The other doesn't. They live in a small rural town. They may have even have come up with the idea first. Without a local meet up they don't get the chance to present. So they post to HN, but Apple announced a new AI tool and their stuff quickly gets bumped by links to Apple, Ars Technica, and a few Apple blogs.
Same idea, different outcomes due to outside forces. Sorry to break it to you but your environment has far more influence to your success than your personal merits.
You may have heard the joke that polyamory is wrong, because it should be multiamory or polyphilia. Meritocracy is a similar case. Because the word mixes Latin and Greek roots, it's unlikely to be old.
The first recorded uses of "meritocracy" are apparently by Marxist sociologists in the 1950s. They used it to describe a dystopian society, where merit serves as a moral justification for social classes, and social class determines the opportunities available to gain and demonstrate merit.
Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.
> Of course the idea that career success and influence should be based on demonstrated ability and effort is ancient. But once you start building a society based on that idea, you run into Goodhart's law.
Do you have any evidence for that? Aside from the thought-terminating cliché "it was used by Marxists once" ?
(Upper) middle class culture, where parents try to give their children a favorable start in life, which often involves a lot of effort. Such as buying a home in a good school district or helping them gain admission to a good university.
The moral justification for meritocracy is that the society benefits when the most capable people are in charge. Which means the society should find the children with the most potential and give them the best education and other opportunities available. But parents subvert this by trying to improve the relative standing of their children. Which means the people who had the best education and other opportunities will be less capable on the average, and the society benefits less.
Man you need to read more, I'm happy other users commented in a more pleasant manner; but congrats on learning that you have a total misunderstanding of both the term and it's real world applications, I bet you can solve 2 LC hards in an hour huh?
Tax paying citizens who want their concerns addressed absolutely LOVE hearing that "Ackchyually, your problem doesn't exist and is all in your head".
P.S. - I have no skin in the game regarding EU immigration policies, just making an honest observation about engaging with people who might have opposing views.
reply