When I went to university there was a fellow student in the course who's registered first language was greek, but could speak English with native proficiency, also french and Latin. They were given extra time in exams to accommodate English not being their first language. This was a biochem degree. So speaking greek and Latin is an advantage not a disadvantage.
1) HN being associated with a startup incubator, and thus attracting a large contingent of people who see themselves as the boss doing this, not the workers affected;
2) tech attracts a certain kind of gullible person who's easily seduced by tidy little systems like the pop-capitalism of libertarian tracts; and
3) tech workers (until recently) had more economic bargaining power than a typical worker, so could delude themselves into thinking they do better by going it alone.
I kinda disagree with #2, even ignoring the adversarial wording - at most it's an extension of "HN isn't All Of Tech"
From people I've spoken to personally, I've seen it as primarily #3 - "Why do we need collective bargaining when we have negotiating power from being in high demand with lower supply?" - despite IMHO that is when you should be using that power for such, as that power will never last forever.
Don't need politics/a "type of person" to be only looking at the short term, and thinking the current status quo will last forever. It seems pretty much a constant in every demographic.
Tech people would obviously be well served by being in the union. If you make a cartel with other people who can do the same job as you, and you don't profit from that, you're doing something terribly wrong.
The reason I'm opposed to it isn't because it wouldn't be good for tech people. I'm opposed to it because in general I think it would be more bad for everyone else than it would be good for tech people. I expect they would see fewer products, higher prices on the products that they have, and lower quality products. Additionally, I expect the union to advocate for the interests of the tech workers, which would generally be for tech workers to make more money, and not in the interests of broader society.
You can see a great example of this with the AMA, which did a great job advocating for the government to reduce the number of new doctors. It's probably great for existing doctors, but the rest of us should not be happy that we're paying more for our healthcare because of it.
why do you think maximising profit for company is ok and everyone is cheering about that, but when employee tries to maximise profit then "oh noes the society will collapse "
I don't have an issue with an employee maximizing profit. I do have an issue with employees banding together and bargaining collectively. Exactly the same way I don't have an issue with a company maximizing profit, but I would have an issue with companies banding together and negotiating collectively.
A difference is that there's not necessarily an inherent size limit on companies while there is an inherent size limit on individuals because you can only be one person. One person can only be so economically valuable.
However, that's why we have the whole system of antitrust to say when a company gets too big, as soon as we can show that it's having some kind of negative effect on consumers, we split it up. And that's exactly what we should do. And we definitely should prevent more mergers as well. What I would do differently w.r.t. antitrust is say that instead of only looking at harm to consumers (those who a company sells to), we should also look at harm to workers (aka those who a company buys from).
> I don't have an issue with an employee maximizing profit. I do have an issue with employees banding together and bargaining collectively. Exactly the same way I don't have an issue with a company maximizing profit, but I would have an issue with companies banding together and negotiating collectively.
One flaw in your logic you seem to thing "an employee" and "a company" are peers. They're not. A company is an equivalent level of "banding together" as a union. A company and an employee union are peers, an employee and a company are not.
> However, that's why we have the whole system of antitrust to say when a company gets too big, as soon as we can show that it's having some kind of negative effect on consumers, we split it up.
And you're mixed up here too:
1. The employee-company relationship is entirely different than the customer-company one. Talking about consumer prices in the employee-company context is nonsense.
2. You're neglecting that all companies have certain interests in common as employers. So even if you break them all up, you're not going to solve the problems a union solves.
Condescending towards who? Overpaid code monkeys? Maybe they should start a professional victimhood organization
> that tells people how to vote because they know whats better for them.
A large portion of this country doesn’t even have the self stewardship to not eat themselves to obesity. Such people should have no place in any political process ideally.
Your point 2 is such a condescending take. I read it as: "Everyone who does not think the same way as I do is gullible and has been seduced, because I am obviously right and they must be weak." This kind behaviour convinces me even more that I dont really trust union people.
'union people' - you mean people who collectively bargain their labor? Do you honestly these people who organize with co-workers to equalize the power imbalance between them and management are a certain kind of 'people'?
Are you one of those people who clutches their pearls and tells on your co-worker to management for discussing how much money they make?
To me (and it’s my personal experience) I read it as tech people have a bias for systemic thinking, and usually lack skills and/or experience in human social dynamics, especially when young, which makes laissez faire capitalism / libertarianism attractive. I’m a bit on the spectrum and to me it has a video game like quality (e.g. humans that are robot like rational actors) that was appealing and reassuring when trying to make sense of the world.
In short don’t find it condescending to say a bias exists, independently of the agreement with the political line of thinking.
In fact when I was younger I was condescending the other way: surely if you are not into libertarianism your systemic thinking must be limited.
> To me (and it’s my personal experience) I read it as tech people have a bias for systemic thinking, and usually lack skills and/or experience in human social dynamics, especially when young, which makes laissez faire capitalism / libertarianism attractive. I’m a bit on the spectrum and to me it has a video game like quality (e.g. humans that are robot like rational actors) that was appealing and reassuring when trying to make sense of the world.
That is exactly what I meant.
Also tech people are often intelligent (in a way) and identify as such, but then let that get to their head and get really overconfident about whatever clicks with them.
If you felt personally attacked you’ve let your biases win over rational thought. Tech obviously does attract libertarians (see bitcoin maxis for a single example of a significant cohort). Libertarianism is also blind towards the obvious failure mode of an organized group overpowering the egoistic as a virtue libertarians. (Think barbarians… or HR.)
I don't feel personally attacked. However, I find the particular wording of the post I initially replied to condescending and reeking of elitism. Calling someone--or a group--gullible and seduced is not going to win them over. Besides, while we are at wording. I dont usually pull that card, but... I am blind, in a literal sense. Seeing my disability being used in a rhetorical way makes me sometimes sad. It kind of shows--on a meta level--that inclusion will never happen.
Ironic considering that tech attracts people with rational thought and less emotional decision making. Is it surprising that I can be rational and not naive?
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "pop-capitalism" and which "libertarian tracts" you are referring to? Because in the expressions of major libertarian(/-adjacent) thinkers (Friedman, Hayek, Smith), the free market is not "tidy". On the contrary these concepts are rather subtle and unintuitive. Perhaps you are referring to some bastardized form? Because, usually you get a gullible person with simple ideas, and capitalism isn't.
This of course plays into the fear US gun advocates have of any attempt to remove their gun rights. If it were to happen though, then maybe as a prepper type with a house and lands in the woods you'd stand a chance against an armed mob that came for you, but certainly not the government. If you're defending your sub-urban house (or even worse flat), I suspect that the gun you have for self defense would make very little difference to the final outcome, but might make you feel a bit better about it.
Enjoyment is not a binary thing. Some "enjoyment" is very low-level, and instantly forgettable. But it's easy and frequently we're lazy. Getting up and doing something else frequently ends up be more enjoyable.
he gets paid for the contracts he already has and for new ones (billions in corporate welfare). some government agencies tried to investigate his companies and contracts (which would cause a loss of handouts from the government), so he bought his way into the government and fired everybody who was investigating his companies.
What about all the other things. For example the crew dragon was docked back in september waiting for return. The last administration could have called for return at any point before the inaguration to claim glory, but didn't because they aren't hacks.
Having a docked ship is not enough. There must be a docked ship on station at all times for evacuations. The thing that was needed was another ship to take some people back and not everyone (well, all but any Russians, since they have their own ships).
Wrong, they could have packed all 4 astronauts (the 2 that came to the ISS on the dragon and Suni and Butch) into the docked dragon and returned at any point. They only waited for the next dragon (crew 10) so that not only the 3 people using the Soyuz would be left on the ISS. But this would have absolutely been possible. The remaining crew would have used their Soyuz in emergencies anyways, they don’t need the dragon.
There's way more than just them. Thanks to all the delays the 4-man SpaceX Crew-8 [1] stayed on the ISS until October 23rd, becoming the longest Dragon stay ever. And the 3-man crew from Soyuz MS-26 got there on September 11th, and is still there.
In fact reading the Soyuz MS-26 Wiki, one of the many records this whole debacle ended up breaking is that when the MS-26 entered into space, there were more humans in space than ever before, with a total of 19!
Did you read my comment? Currently, there is one Dragon and one Soyuz docked to the ISS. If Crew-9 had left earlier, before the Crew-10 Dragon had arrived, there would have been only the Soyuz left.
Do the Soyuz still touch down in a desert in a place like Kazakhstan or do they touch down on water nowadays? The desert solid ground touch downs seem so brutal.
Soyuz is always landing on ground (except in emergencies, and Soyuz 23 broke through a frozen lake). They do have Retro rockets that are fired shortly before contact and dampened Seats, but from the reports I heard, it's still a very rough landing.
But Crew 10 had also been planned for a while, so the narrative that Trump ordered a new ship to go up "NOW" can't be true. For example, heres a post about NASA moving the launch date to March, in December last year: https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/commercialcrew/2024/12/17/nasa-ad...
This is definitely true. The only questions are: a) could they have gone back home on the retrofitted seats on Crew 8 or b) could there had been a Crew 10 sooner to allow them to go home on Crew 9 sooner. I don't really know what's up with those questions.
Did they care more about "not manipulating NASA for political points" than about astronauts who were stuck in space for 9 months, with all the harmful effects that it entails?
Standard rotations are about 6 months - Butch and Suni were supposed to be up there for 8 days... Their families, their lives, and everything normal for way longer than planned. Health routines or not, that’s a brutal toll—mentally, emotionally, not just bones and muscles. Stop downplaying it like it’s no big deal
Just because they signed up for it, doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to prevent it. Staying for 9 months in space is not a small deal for people's health.
So NASA did indeed try to prevent it, and weighed it against a multitude of other considerations, and actual experts running actual missions have explicitly and patiently explained the what, the how, and the why.
>All you said are literally in the descriptions of the jobs they signed up for.
Dismissing every exceptional circumstance as "the jobs they signed up for." is absurd. That's like saying the crash of flight 5342 that killed 67 people is what those passengers signed up for, so it's no big deal.
Turns out they were prepared for this circumstance, had a back up plan, and communicated this plan many times.
Just because you don't like this plan doesn't mean it's bad/political/whatever other fantasy you may come up with.
> That's like saying the crash of flight 5342 that killed 67 people is what those passengers signed up for, so it's no big deal.
Nope, it isn't like that at all. None of those passengers trained, rigorously, for an extreme number of extreme situations. Unlike astronauts whose training includes all that, and more.
And risk and exceptional circumstances are absolutely one hundred percent in the job description. Unlike the passengers in the your analogy you pulled out of an unmentionable place.
reply