§ Big list of Hacker news

The road to hell is paved with good intentions I am a coloured South African(an ethnic group that was previously disadvantaged due to apartheid era racial policies) we in South Africa have Affirmative action policies called Black Economic Empower(BEE) (Its open to all previously advantaged racial groups ie Black, Coloured, Indian they just call it BEE) that has led to mass corruption and cronyism. >Start with crony capitalism, which in South Africa goes by the euphemism “black economic empowerment”. The idea behind it seemed laudable enough—to right a historical wrong. Under apartheid, the country produced white titans of industry such as the Oppenheimer family (owners of DeBeers), while making it hard for black South Africans to own businesses. The ANC(Ruling political party) felt it only fair that there should be black billionaires, too. To give them a leg-up it insisted that mining companies should hand at least 26% of their shares to the “historically disadvantaged”. Mining companies (as well as banks and insurers) did so willingly, diluting existing shareholdings when they transferred stakes to the likes of Cyril Ramaphosa, now the president, along with Patrice Motsepe, his brother-in-law, and Bridgette Radebe, his sister-in-law. [1 ] I and alot of South Africans could stomach a one-off payment or one-off percentage equity stake in firms(in South Africa the government instituted a policy that South African Corporate firms would sell shares preferential)to disadvantaged groups but after these shares were sold, the government wanted to continuously repeat it. >If these handouts had been a one-off tax, their harm would by now have been forgotten. But once the new black shareholders had sold their holdings, the government drafted regulations to repeat the process. And so capital investment in mines fell by 45% between 2010 and 2018, with output falling by 10% and employment by 50,000—a tenth of direct employment in the industry in 2010. [1 ] When the government gives support not based on merit and competence but gender, race, religion or ethnicity you undermine industrial policy(Instead of support based on a person's potential ability or ability to do things)With affirmative action you end up institutionalising incompetence. >Black Economic Empowerment, a policy that incentivises firms to give equity to black investors or business to black-owned suppliers, has created a new generation of Randlords with more political acumen than entrepreneurial talent. “Cadre deployment”, whereby ANC party(Ruling political party) members get jobs on the basis of factional fealty rather than merit, has degraded the state. These appointees steer contracts towards chosen “tenderpreneurs”, who in turn donate to the party. By 2007 Kgalema Motlanthe, a party grandee, said: “This rot is across the board...Almost every project is conceived because it offers opportunities for certain people to make money.” [2 ] Many South African feel that our counrty has become "a cappuccino society, A vast, huge, black majority at the bottom with a layer of white cream and a few chocolate sprinklings at the top of it" referring to the small black elite who have gained great riches from the post-apartheid years - from a failed attempt to rebalance the wealth among the many. Yes, I acknowledge the present-day inequities that racist, sexist, etc policies can cause, but if a Government was serious about addressing historical inequalities then you need to invest in education and skills development. Affirmative action never works in the long term, instead of making people competent and self-reliant,it makes them dependent on handouts. Contrast Taiwan and Malaysia's Industrial Policies and Outcomes Taiwan's has currently a healthy semiconductor industry with many successful and impressive firms ie TSMC, etc. And Malaysia with its affirmative action laws favouring certain ethnicities that ultimately undermined their industrial policies. The corruption and shenanigans that result from affirmative action policies happened in South Africa also happened in Malaysia and undermined their long term industrial goals. Appropriating a quote from Deng Xiaoping "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." This is taken to mean that as long as the economy works, it is a good economy. Affirmative action is equality of outcome. Do people think they have godly powers that can guarantee certain outcomes or results? There is an inherent risk of failure in all ventures and endeavours. A correct criticism of capitalism is when it does not provide equal opportunity and so we should always strive to provide equal opportunity, but people confuse that with the equal outcome when, equal outcome can only be enforced through violence because different people, free people make different choices and when they make different choices they have different outcomes if you don't let them suffer the consequences of bad choices or reap the rewards from good choices then you have to use force or violence to get a prefered outcome If people are really serious about freedom and equality then you should want not just the freedom to succeed, but also the freedom to fail. [1 ]https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/07/24/end-of-the-line... [2 ]https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2021/07/24/...
Strongest words ought to start and begin a sentences. A re-phrasing I made:
"Thus, we know that pr-ty lives in UNIV because of correctness of synth" into "Correctness of synth guarantees that pr-ty lives in UNIV".
There is low satisfaction of finishing and understanding a section, it seems
to flow a little too continuous.
Align figures to either all left or all right.
In structure, label references to future sections are non existent, so it
would help assure the reader in section x that you will talk more about the uses of this in section y.
What do you have in mind? works well to get to know what the other person
would like.
So the way I see it, is that as soon as you are
naming something, people may ask things like "What is X exactly? What is X composed of?". So I can clearly see reviewers ask "What is DSL composed of?", but if we wouldn't name it, I wouldn't expect reviewers to ask "What is the python interface composed of?"
She told me that I was what she calls institutionally poor. That I had been conditioned thru my childhood to think like a poor person and in doing so you send out unconscious signals to others. She told me this because she came up similar. She told me that it causes you to over analyze and over estimate risk and therefore you will not take the bold moves that people that don't have to worry do. That while you can change the world and everyone see it. If you hold onto the fear on meeting your net under you, that you will never extract your true value from other. So I said, so you are going to pay me my fair value, she laughed and said no, I got you for a very good deal. 3 Days latter I walked into her office, with my resignation letter and told her I had an offer from another company. She said, now you get it, how much did they offer. I told her, and she said I will double that if you stay.
Here's a discontinuity irl that I read about: you bite into an apple and find a worm. Disgusting. But worse would be to find 1/2 a worm, worse still 1/4 of a worm, etc... continuity would imply the worst case scenario is biting into an apple and not finding a worm.
PORT (wine) is always LEFT at sea, but never left at dinner. L for LEFT, is close to P for PORT. R for RIGHT, is close to S for STARBOARD
Mona Lisa was special in part because it was uncommon for people to smile. In Middle Ages, someone smiling a lot would be perceived as stupid. That's why facial expressions in medieval imagery are so serious. Today, being surprised a lot is often taken as a sign of stupidity, whereas in ancient Greece an owl was the bird of Athena, the goddess of wisdom. Because, obviously, an owl is always surprised, and surprise is the first step to understanding.
Social justice and "fairness" is rarely one of the main goals of a meritocracy. The main goal of a meritocracy is peak performance. NFL teams select the "best" quarter-backs not because it's most fair, but because it will produce the most wins. Universities grant tenure to the most productive professors, because that will enhance the University's reputation. Hospitals hire the best doctors, because they can save the most lives. A society should delegate its most important responsibilities to its smartest/most-knowledgable members, because they can best lead society through worldly challenges. Which is not to say that Social Justice isn't important. It is vital. But you don't get to it by hiring the wrong people in the wrong roles. A meritocracy excels at producing wealth - Universal Basic Income, Universal Healthcare, Unemployment Insurance, better Public Schooling... these are the kind of Social Justice programs that best distribute the wealth back to society.
my only other critique, which is good in general, but try to force yourself to
speak slower than you want to.
taking time to build a diagram is the best way to convey knowledge
learning to be comfortable with silences while speaking doesn't come naturally to anyone.
Some kids grow up on football. I grew up on public speaking (as behavioral therapy for a speech impediment, actually). If you want to get radically better in a hurry: 1) If you ever find yourself buffering on output, rather than making hesitation noises, just pause. People will read that as considered deliberation and intelligence. It's outrageously more effective than the equivalent amount of emm, aww, like, etc. Practice saying nothing. Nothing is often the best possible thing to say. (A great time to say nothing: during applause or laughter.) 2) People remember voice a heck of a lot more than they remember content. Not vocal voice, but your authorial voice, the sort of thing English teachers teach you to detect in written documents. After you have found a voice which works for you and your typical audiences, you can exploit it to the hilt. I have basically one way to start speeches: with a self-deprecating joke. It almost always gets a laugh out of the crowd, and I can't be nervous when people are laughing with me, so that helps break the ice and warm us into the main topic. 3) Posture hacks: if you're addressing any group of people larger than a dinner table, pick three people in the left, middle, and right of the crowd. Those three people are your new best friends, who have come to hear you talk but for some strange reason are surrounded by great masses of mammals who are uninvolved in the speech. Funny that. Rotate eye contact over your three best friends as you talk, at whatever a natural pace would be for you. (If you don't know what a natural pace is, two sentences or so works for me to a first approximation.) Everyone in the audience -- both your friends and the uninvolved mammals -- will perceive that you are looking directly at them for enough of the speech to feel flattered but not quite enough to feel creepy. 4) Podiums were invented by some sadist who hates introverts. Don't give him the satisfaction. Speak from a vantage point where the crowd can see your entire body. 5) Hands: pockets, no, pens, no, fidgeting, no. Gestures, yes. If you don't have enough gross motor control to talk and gesture at the same time (no joke, this was once a problem for me) then having them in a neutral position in front of your body works well. 6) Many people have different thoughts on the level of preparation or memorization which is required. In general, having strong control of the narrative structure of your speech without being wedded to the exact ordering of sentences is a good balance for most people. (The fact that you're coming to the conclusion shouldn't surprise you.) 7) If you remember nothing else on microtactical phrasing when you're up there, remember that most people do not naturally include enough transition words when speaking informally, which tends to make speeches loose narrative cohesion. Throw in a few more than you would ordinarily think to do.