Well, most of the people in a large company are clueless, anyway, so it's not a big loss.

There's been lobbying, protests, strikes. Doesn't matter. There are a lot of rich and politically well connected people who want Uber to succeed.

So, in America, make the right friends and you're above prosecution.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am, because I never took Uber to have powerful friends. I suppose I should take "successful business" to mean "well-connected" from now on.

On page 11, I posted a link to a panel in which Alan Kay came up with the 80% figure exactly from a back-of-the envelope calculation which simultaneously described conservative people (and programmers, as a special case) in one shot.

I timestamped it a little bit before where he ends with this remark for the setup, and after explaining where he gets the 80% number, he finishes with this zinger:

"What is the largest group of unenlightened group of people I have ever met in the world? How about programmers? They get absolutely no good effect from debugging, because they only want to get their program running."

Marvin Minsky (RIP) chimes in a bit later: "In fact if your program works, you look at it an say, 'is that all'?"

A bit later (in reference to earlier discussion in the panel) Kay suggests that we should all be like Finland, and ditch testing and homework.

Some Greek guy once said that "The unexamined life is not worth living".

As a corollary, might we ask, "is the unexamined society hospitable to be alive in"?

I don't see what the criticism for disliking debugging is, do they think all people should become invested in the art of programming for it's own sake? I find many aspects of programming fascinating, but if I'm writing code to study a certain mathematical object, my primary concern is for it to work..

I suppose their point is more, "look at all of the people writing ****ty websites with no concern for any underlying theory", which is a fine criticism.

Not quite.

The people on that stage are the cybernetic counterparts of the `60s counter-culture, who thought that computers would be used to amplify intelligence and creativity, and that "programming" as widely practiced would be abolished.

The mathematician and co-founder of the MIT AI lab for whom that panel discussion is dedicated, Seymour Papert, said that "to think about thinking, you need to think about thinking about something". The architect with the round glasses on the stage explained how he had thought that debugging was a good approximation of thinking about thinking, and hence that by getting people to write programs, they would become more introspective. (He cites that they at least became better spellers, because by having debugged programs, they tended to focus on their mistakes more than other students).

Turns out (surprise), that this was incredibly naive, since it underestimates just how useful computers are at replacing existing tasks even with mostly broken models of programming, and that most people would spend much more time trying to get their computer to work at all than to try to understand how it could work (better), and as a result you have a bifurcation between programmers and non-programmers, the former ironically spending way too much time programming, and the later doing no programming at all, and hence doing no debugging at all (and hence not garnering the ostensible benefit of being more introspective, if this was ever even a credible implication, but it was a nice thing to hope for?).

At any rate, I only brought it up again because you said that 80% of the population is not introspective / is conservative, and this is exactly the figure that Alan Kay came up with.

As for "****ty websites", you have a pretty ****ed up model of hypertext in the WWW, which doesn't automatically propagate the act of linking an object to the object itself. As a result a Stanford student was able to become a billionaire.

Alan Kay wondered in 1997 if this was what happens when you gave physicists computers, and although this was admittedly a pretty asinine thing to say, having been part of a group of researchers who had a much less broken model of hypermedia in the 60s and 70s, he has plenty of reason to be bitter.

Ohh, so he was one of those technophiles who believed computers would revolutionize humanity. I wonder if he is disappointed that we don't have flying cars and x-ray vision too. /s

His diagnosis of the way things are sounds right, but I'm kind of curious why anyone would expect things to work in the way he had presumed. Did he expect human nature to change because of computers?

Human nature has changed because of computers. Project ARPA and PARC were both wildly successful. Today we have personal computing and the internet. If Alan Kay seems utopian, it's only because it's difficult to guess which of your revolutionary inventions will revolutionize society and which ones people will simply serve as a model for how things could have been even better.

As to why the entirety of humanity hasn't taken advantage of it? I think that goes back to Alan Kay's 80% of the population who won't do something even when it is a good idea. They are called conservatives.

What hasn't changed is economics.

Holy **** Comcast why are you so slow today.

Maybe you should switch to a competi- ahahahahaha.

Uhhhhhhhh, we have CenturyLink here, so we have freedoms like Americans.

Please help me.

Also we have google fiber

So then they (alphabet) know about all the weird porn (turnips) and that I post here to make poor advertising predictions that show me what I have already purchased.

But one has to have a slightly different harassment package right?

How does Google know that you went to Massassi? Is Fiber really that hostile to your privacy?

I am very sorry I googled that

Replying to myself here to keep out of the UK thread, but, yeah, Hillary's biggest supporters, preachy privileged white girl, "professional photographer" in new york, i.e. a trust fund kiddy, who at 35 dresses like this:



Do you really need more?

I can't imagine they aren't.

I feel like this board has been allowed to converge to a rather dark view of humanity as a result of the three most active posters besides myself.

(Insert appropriate second sentence of post here, didn't have time to turn this cynicism into a witticism)

I'm an optimist!!

I know you are.

For some reason I put Spook as the third Harbinger in addition to Jon`C and Reid instead of you, since he seems to be posting more lately.

BTW, don't take my remark to mean I resent that you guys call a spade a spade, especially when it's being used to dig a grave for Western Civilization.

Ernst Gellner's Nations and Nationialism. Anyone here read it?

No, what's the gist?

Thoughts on where the Trump/Russia story is going? It seems to be boiling down to "someone talked with Russia when they shouldn't," and is successfully distracting all of the liberals from the other things Trump is doing.

Rex Tillerson: "We aren't lifting Russian sanctions until they give back Crimea"

Liberals: "That's just what a Russian conspirer would want us to think!"

As of late, I've seen more on the left attacking the liberal-center for its paranoia than I've seen the liberal-center expressing concern about the scandal.

Interesting, where are you reading that? Maybe I focus too much on the news media.

I feel the liberals are more hopeful of a deep scandal than afraid of it.

My impressions are mostly anecdotal, admittedly: I'm mostly getting the idea from Twitter. These days I rarely come across articles about Russia in the media I read (NYT, WaPo, TNR, New Yorker, Foreign Affairs, etc etc), but I still see frequent indictments of the Democratic party/Democrat's "sensationalism" from many who are left of left of center.

But, in general, the Russia scandal seems to be drawing less attention than at any point since Trump's presidency began. Most intramural debates in the past week or two have been stimulated by the recent release of this book, and have to do with the extent of Clinton's responsibility for her loss.

Which, if I recall, the left argued was the debate the liberals were trying to avoid by making so much hay of the Russian scandal...

I think Schumer recently suggested that Trump blocking the investigation is treasonous and a bunch of people I know were passing the video around like gospel, so I do still know some people who won't let go of the Trump story and are just edging for him to get removed.

The reviews on that book though, holy ****balls. Schizophrenic and the ratings are an inverted Gaussian distribution.

Though from the reviews I read, when you ignore the obvious Trump voters, it looks like the book is a pretty accurate read that errs on the side of being too forgiving to Hillary. Might be worth skimming a pdf.

And yeah, I think your summary of the left's stance is apt. Given that the Trump administration is not lifting sanctions, it very much douses the suggestion that Trump is a puppet or is controlled.

So serious and bad, but I don't even think this will be Watergate levels in the end. I could be surprised, though, but I think if the FBI were really eyeballing some evidence we would know, and it seems they rejected Flynn's immunity deal, meaning they probably don't think it goes much further.

So let's see if we get the story right:

Russia is scared of losing power in the Middle East via it's only ally, Assad. They back him up through atrocities in response the Arab Spring. U.S. funds rebels, some of which are less than noble (understated probably), and is permissive towards ISIS and its U.S.-allied backers, hoping Assad will be toppled. Russia tries to negotiate a peaceful resolution that ends in Assad stepping down, U.S. refuses.

Cue 2016 electon. Hillary, being SOS who led charge against Libya, will want to continue Obama's fight. Russia, constantly pumping out images to appeal to right-wing sensibilties, sees the right wing as the best place to earn favor. Trump as well speaks softly about Russia. Slowly the constellation of peolle forms around Trump, Russia begins negotiating with anyone from the Republicans they think will play ball to get sanctions lifted.

Russia then attempts hacking any and all election targets, only leaking Democrat documents as they are the primary threat to Russian control of Syria. Russia pays warehouses of trolls to dupe right wingers and other non-liberals on Facebook.

Trump wins. Three people are identified for having talked to Russia. Democrats shift all blame onto Russia. Trump fears being disliked, goes full reverse on any sane peaceful policy promises and bombs Syria. Tillerson promises no sanctions will be lifted, Trump doesn't help investigations because he's afraid the evidence will reveal he's stupid. And a tax evader.

Does that about sum it up?

You're saying that's the liberal story, or that it's what actually happened?

If the chart on this page is to be believed, it's significantly worse than Watergate.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/

That is, this scandal is shaking public confidence in institutions when that confidence is already much lower than it was during and immediately after the watergate scandal. If you think the gravity of watergate can be measured by the fact that it led to a president's resignation, then maybe the Trump-Russia scandal won't be as bad. But if you measure it according to its effect on a society that is already troubled by serious problems, then it's already worse, no matter what the outcome.

Im saying that's what happened

That is fair, I was thinking in terms of the first.

Oh. Most of my disagreements are about facts in the first two paragraphs, rather than about the broader story you're telling. Listing my disagreements would be tangential and wouldn't address your main point. But I can get into it!

But, big picture: I don't bother speculating on what happened. It's all chasing wind.

Someone might think that impeachment would be bad, because it would signal that America had reached a nadir of some kind. But if substantial evidence were provided that Trump has done something wrong, impeachment or resignation could actually repair some of the damage to the American public's confidence in its institutions. Under certain conditions, Trump stepping down could be more desirable, not more devastating. It would provide a sense of resolution, and inspire confidence that the government can self-correct. Looking at that page I posted above, confidence in government actually stabilized for a period of time after Nixon's impeachment, after a very precipitous decline leading up to it during the earlier years of his presidency.

Here's what I think happened.

• Trump is a moron.

...

Okay, more specifically

• Trump isn't a statesman, he's a businessman. He approached the situation like a businessman.
• He identified Russia as a key competitor to the United States in the "projection of power" industry he wanted to enter.
• He used his social network to score a warm introduction with the "chief executive" of Russia.
• His agent (son) invited Putin's agent (crony) to an exclusive resort away from the media to do business (collude).
• Putin isn't a statesman. He's also not a businessman. He's an intelligence officer. He responded to this situation like an intelligence officer.
• Putin treated Trump like a new intelligence asset / defector.
• Putin used his position to groom Trump to trust him and depend upon him, while also using intelligence operations to secure Trump's position within the enemy ranks.
• Trump, being a moron / egotist / non-traitor, doesn't recognize what Putin is doing. And, as a businessman, he expects a proper, under-the-table, tit-for-tat arrangement.
• Putin, being a moron / egotist / non-traitor, doesn't understand what Trump is doing. And, as an intelligence officer, he expects Trump will use his office to extend the interests of the Russian state.
• Putin breaks the business arrangement by antagonizing the US further, backing Assad, refusing to withdraw from Crimea.
• Trump breaks the intelligence arrangement by refusing to lift sanctions, bombing Syria.
• By this point, they've probably both figured out what went wrong. And in Trump's case, someone told him that what he did was illegal. It was illegal in business, too, but, while the US government would never prosecute a businessman, they might actually prosecute a statesman.
• The clueless pawn Trump puts in charge of the warm introduction tries to take a dive. Because in business, that is usually enough to satisfy shareholders. But in government that's called a cover-up. A conspiracy.

TL;DR: I don't think Trump meant to do anything wrong. He acted the way he normally does and ended up breaking the law in a bad way. If anybody cares to prosecute him, he is properly ****ed.

That's a very thoughtful analysis.

By the way, it just occurred to me that most Americans here might not really "get" the US Canada trade war that's going on right now. To be frank, your media isn't very good at explaining this kind of situation to you, so maybe I can shed some light on what's really happening.

The core of this whole problem is that the US does not honour its international agreements. Period. And yes, I do mean offense when I say this. The US, as a country, is a bloodthirsty liar. A terrible trading partner and a worse ally. You can't trust the US to ever do anything it says it's going to do.

Now, US people aren't all like that. I like you folks as people, and I know none of you have any real say about what your government does. But your country, as a global actor, as represented by your government and businesses, is hot garbage. A whole lotta people hate the US, and I'm sorry if this is news to you, but it's not because they're jealous of your freedom. It's because the US acts in bad faith quite literally 100% of the time.

This US Canada trade war is a perfect example of US belligerence playing out in real life.

There are (currently) two big issues in this dispute.

The first is dairy. The short version that you've been told is that Canada applies a very high tariff to dairy product imports, and US producers don't want to pay them.

Here's the true version that you haven't been told. The US dairy industry is crumbling apart right now due to a capitalist crisis (massive overproduction). The US wants access to the Canadian market so they can dump excess inventory and maybe limp along for another year before the entire US dairy industry collapses.

Of course, the important point here is that US producers don't have access to the Canadian market. There are three reasons for this.

First, there is no US-Canada dairy free trade agreement, so Canada can legally do whatever they want for dairy and the US has no statutory right to retaliate against Canada for it.

Second, Canadian dairy tariffs and supply chain management exist to prevent exactly the kind of situation that has happened to the US dairy industry. Our government regulates the dairy industry to prevent an oversupply crisis. Allowing the US free access to our dairy market wouldn't fix the US dairy crisis, it would only expand the crisis.

Third, the US illegally subsidizes its dairy industry. If there were a US Canada dairy free trade agreement, Canada would have the right to apply a massive punitive tariff anyway.

Okay, so that's the dairy situation. The US ****ed itself up and wants to sweep the problem under its closest allies.

The second core issue is softwood lumber. The short version you've been told is that Canada illegally subsidizes its lumber industry. If you've heard more, it was probably something about government land that got glossed over.

Here's the true version. Both Canada and the US sell access to national land for logging. Both Canada and the US charge market rates for land. Canada has 1/10th the US population and probably like 100x the trees. We have fewer producers bidding competitively over a vastly larger supply, which essentially means Canadians are better at producing lumber than the US, something which shouldn't really surprise anybody. Except the US government, of course, which insists that our competitive advantage can only possibly exist due to government subsidization.

This comes up every 10 years or so. And every 10 years, this is what happens:

- The US says Canada is illegally subsidizing its softwood lumber industry, and slaps a tariff on Canadian lumber imports.
- Canada sues the US for an illegal tariff.
- The WTO finds no evidence that Canada is subsidizing its industry and rules in Canada's favor.
- The US ignores the ruling (i.e. ignores NAFTA) and imposes a tariff or quota anyway.

The same thing is going to happen this time, too, unless (God willing) Trump blows a gasket and we get to forget this whole "treaty with the US" thing ever happened. Because this is the lesson the world has learned: a treaty with the US is pointless. It's not worth the paper it's written on. When it benefits the US, free trade will happen, whether you have a treaty or not. But if you do have a treaty with the US, it is followed at the US's convenience only, and to be ignored in all other cases.

So you might as well not even bother. At least if you don't have a free trade agreement, its harder for US corporations to sue you when you tell them to obey your laws.