> Yes, the federal government of the United States has always attached conditions to federal funding.
Sure, but that's a very high level of abstraction.
At a lower level, it is far less common (if precedented at all) for the federal executive to attempt to unilaterally impose conditions that violate the Federal Constitution and would require those subject to the conditions to violate federal civil rights law.
Not like this, no, and it has never shaken down schools like it has at Columbia or Harvard.
As much as I despise these institutions and their undergrads this does nothing to punish them and everything to increase the power of this current corrupt executive.
They hate the rest of us that didn’t get into elite schools and are permanent members of the upper caste of this country. Graduate school admission is more purely meritocratic on if you can do research but even that isn’t great.
Yes. I live in a city with two Ivy+ institutions and graduates from many more. They're all the same, except some are better at faking it than others.
And why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they think people like me are lazy and genetically predisposed to be stupid? I didn't make $500k out of undergrad. HRT or OpenAI isn't going to recruit me anytime soon. My net worth isn't $12m at 29, it's a tenth that.
Whenever I ask what the difference between them and their infinite success and potential is and people like me they never have an answer. They're always so confused.
> My net worth isn't $12m at 29, it's a tenth that
This honestly reads like you are just bragging about how successful you are. I think you know this, but if you made $150k at 22 and have a net worth of $1M at 29, you are far more monetarily successful than the vast, vast majority of the country. I’m pretty sure you are rage baiting, which doesn’t belong on HN, but if not you are seriously out of touch and not grateful enough for your luck or proud enough of the work you have put in to get there.
This is not bragging to literally anybody that went to an Ivy+ school for CS ~10 years ago. A $15m+ net worth is their standard for success. Hell, it's their standard for _average_.
Is this like a humiliation fetish at this point? This is seriously unhealthy. We don't hate our friends that didn't a go to an eLiTe school because we're not sociopaths. Not sure why I'm even trying since you seem pretty dead set on this, but it's just a lot easier to go through life without made up enemies.
People that go to elite undergrads think the rest of us are a lower inferior caste. I don’t know how that’s even something you can deny. You’ve clearly expended a lot of effort to segregate yourself from the likes of people like me or people that go to SJSU because we don’t have “merit” or “potential”
isn't it? isn't this why we're at this place. Let's not not get caught up in facile pretexts. 'those coastal elitists' haven't thrown enough bones to the rest of the country, and they feel resentful for being marginalized. so we send troops into the city and harass the universities and break up with the europeans to 'fix' the situation, just like we fixed the California fires by venting freshwater into the ocean.
I can deny it because it's obvious bullshit lol. I don't think that way and neither does anybody I know from MIT think that way. This is reality versus your imagination. If there's anyone I look down on it's my classmates who could've worked anywhere and still went to palantir...
I can't claim 100% aren't assholes, but the vast majority realize the luck and arbitrary nature of it. Are you going to be stuck in decision day sadness mode for the rest of your life? Life is too short
I've asked people at MIT this repeatedly. They all say they came to MIT for the peer group. Peer group = people that are not _like me_. They shut up quick when I challenge them on that point though, or ask what the difference between them and me is. Even the non-assholes sometimes genuinely don't realize there's an entire parallel world beneath them with zero privilege or respect that made $150k out of undergrad instead of $500k.
I am nearly sure that you are not arguing in good faith, but just the fact that you think all elite school grads make $500k shows that you have not talked to a nearly representative sample. I went to an elite school and have friends that make much less even than $150k. Are you aware that there is an entire parallel world beneath you with zero privilege or respect that make $40k instead of $150k?
I’m not sure why you think anyone is targeting you specifically. The vast majority of students at elite schools, in my experience, know that we got lucky in addition to all the other things that we did well to get admitted.
A couple people in this thread now have told you that they don’t match your description of “every” and “all” graduates of elite schools, and the nice thing about using such strong descriptors is that a single counterexample disproves them.
> I went to an elite school and have friends that make much less even than $150k.
They're doing so by choice to do PhDs or go into public service. They (as in, the ones in quantitative majors and many even outside of it) _also_ had the choice to make several multiples of what I made by working at Jane Street or HRT or Citadel or now OpenAI and Anthropic.
I didn't have the choice. Nobody is selecting me for anything, I don't have the optionality of doing just anything. I took the best offer I got at a company that most elite school students would consider to be beneath them (Amazon).
Anyways, I'd also bet you make multiples of what I make now too as someone with a higher level if you're an SWE or adjacent.
I'm just trying to shatter the illusion. Stop wrecking your mental health because you can't hang with the IMO kids. Many of these people are, unsurprisingly, very insular unless you want to talk about math and TC all day. Sounds really fun. The red pill is to be happy you're already making a fuckton of money for typing shit into a computer and make some friends in pottery class
Maybe that's true. I'm sympathetic to the fact that these people aren't even interesting enough to be around. But then I see articles like this [0] sympathizing (?) with elite students that don't end up going into public service while still canonizing them and then I fall back into depression
You are simply wrong. Mechanical engineering majors, as an example of the most common non-CS major, don’t have any such high-paying opportunities until at least after a PhD (and even then they are lower than you are saying). Many make less than $100k out of college. Even CS majors have a hard time getting an interview at those top-paying companies.
Seems pretty awful that the manager let him work on software upgrades for two years without telling him that work would not lead to the promotion he was clearly planning on.
> without telling him that work would not lead to the promotion he was clearly planning on.
The way I read it, he waited two years to express his desire to pursue promotion.
The manager saw the topic as a starting point for the promotion discussion and tried to explain what steps to take to get there.
The employee saw the discussion as the end point of his unrevealed promotion quest and was surprised that his history alone was not aligned with promotion exportations.
This all could have been clarified with a simple conversation 1-2 years ago expressing intent to pursue promotion and asking what it would take to get there.
This is how I read it too. What's more, it looks like they're interested in going senior -> staff; at all Large Tech Companies, senior is a perfectly reasonable "terminal" role for a SWE, and many SWEs don't want to get promoted to staff. (Staff SWE is a different job from senior SWE; you might not want want to do that job, and that's typically fine.)
So I think the lesson here is wrong too - when the manager said
> These tasks aren’t business priorities and had no impact on customers and other teams
that didn't mean they were worthless tasks - just that they weren't business priorities and had no impact on customers or other teams. Which is probably true(ish - I would have phrased it very differently if I were their manager).
Improving the release process is great, and helps the team a ton - and indirectly helps customers by enabling the team to ship faster. This is incredibly valuable! And at the right scale, it can be a staff job: at my Large Tech Company, I know several people that have been promoted to staff SWE for this kind of work, but it's for systems that hundreds of SWEs work on. I also know people that have been promoted to senior SWE for this kind of work - these are systems that tens of SWEs work on. It sounds like this example was more like that - this person was doing a good senior SWE job, and the manager didn't see any reason to course correct given that they had given no signal they wanted to get promoted.
Managers should figure out plans with their employees. It is too easy for someone focused on one thing to get lost in something that doesn't matter. It is your manager job to stop from doing that.
note that often preventing problems is not rewarded. Putting out a fire you caused is. Good managers will help you explain why this not obviously useful thing is valuable because of the proplem it prevented.
This is one of the top things pushing me to an EV, so I can charge at home and be done with gas stations. As EVs get more market share, these intrusive ads will only get worse.
Albert Ellis wrote a book, "Is Objectivism a Religion" as far back as 1968. Murray Rothbard wrote "Mozart Was a Red", a play satirizing Rand's circle, in the early 60's. Ayn Rand was calling her own circle of friends, in "jest", "The Collective" in the 50's. The dynamics were there from almost the beginning.
These are all great, I love city life and would embrace every single item, but without addressing the dramatic decline in public safety in virtually all US cities, none of these will matter at all.
Interesting thing is that cars are never considered to be threat to public safety. People have simply accepted that cycling/walking is unsafe (because of cars), so parents have to drive their kids everywhere.
During the 70s in the Netherlands there were massive protests called 'Stop the Child murder', because cars were killing too many children on bicycles. This was actually a conservative protest, because people were used to safe streets and simply did not accept that cars started killing their children.
One under-mentioned hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists is poor outdoor lighting at night. I cannot tell you the number of times high-glare lighting has blocked my ability to see a pedestrian or cyclist.
One thing I've noticed that makes biking/walking in conjunction with cars much safer is the construction of road-sized sidewalks with clear delineators, where pedestrians and cyclists can safely pass. In Helsinki, biking was a joy, despite the busy streets nearby. I saw the same organization in many parts of Israel—big sidewalks with a section designated for bicycles, scooters, and e-mobility devices. In many of the small cities surrounding Stockholm, dedicated bike paths with their lighting were located adjacent to the main roads.
Around where I live, there is a three-lane main thoroughfare that has two lanes for travel and one lane for turning. There are sidewalks along this road, but they are functionally destroyed by the roots of trees growing near them.
This could become more bicycle-friendly if roundabouts were installed at major intersections and the sidewalks were expanded to accommodate pedestrian/bicycle use. Although if they did, I could hear the screams about how the roundabouts are impeding traffic flow for commuters and removing all the sidewalk-destroying trees.
I agree with the people who say it's not that we can't do it, it's that we won't do it.
I think in the US we've done a great job educating a subset of the population about how dangerous cars are. In the wealthy, walkable neighborhood I live in, everyone is very sensitive to the dangers of cars. Cycling and walking are common, with many kids being involved too.
That said, this understanding is very unevenly distributed, in large part because our neighborhood also gets more police attention and is generally very safe.
I don’t think it is just about awareness. Americans have simply accepted that cars are dangerous and thus traffic is dangerous and people have adjusted their whole lifestyle around it. For example, it’s normal to drive your kids everywhere.
Cars are dangerous. When crime began to decline after the early 90s, American cities had a renaissance with huge numbers of people moving to them. Now, with the rampant public disorder, we are back to suburbs dramatically outgrowing the center cities.
I understand that some people feel so afraid of homeless people or street addicts that they assume they must be in danger whenever they witness such poverty, but crime statistics do not support this opinion.
And yet, public disorder is increasing. Sure, it is better than the 90s, but that can hardly be the standard. Those days were awful, we can and should do much better than that.
Which is it, crime or disorder? These are not the same thing.
In terms of actual crime, we're doing about as well as we were back in the late '50s.
You sound like many people here in Seattle who gripe about "public safety", but this is a very safe city - it's kind of absurd. When you press them on it, you find out that they simply don't like to look at homeless people, or junkies, and they mistake the discomfort they feel when witnessing such sights for actual danger.
Statistics show that homeless people and street junkies are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of violent crime. Merely seeing them does not harm you; nor are they likely to do anything which would harm you.
I'm a little suspect of any claims or numbers outside of murder counts nowadays. Unreported crime was an issue before but now that police have embraced a sort of slacker/work-to-rule/soft-strike attitude to their jobs since they don't feel appreciated after civilians dared to protest their bad behavior, there's a feedback loop of: crime happens, cops are called, nothing is done, another crime happens, no one bothers to report it. It's not just the cops that are a problem either, the revolving door where criminals that do get brought in are right back out on bail is demoralizing cops and civilians alike. If real crime rates were decreasing, wouldn't we see the system that handles them also improving? Instead it looks like a shit show, thus the numbers are probably kinda bullshit.
Every serious study of this was done by people entirely aware of that problem, who use multiple data sources to mitigate the effect. And yet every time this comes up on HN a bunch of posters are all “well I push buttons on keyboards for a living, so I know better than experts in every other field, even about their own field!”
I’ve seen posters complaining about unreported crimes on here in response to posts citing studies that directly and prominently address that exact problem, because I guess they just assume everyone in the social sciences is a total dipshit who can’t possibly have thought of this obvious thing (and didn’t bother to read the study and perhaps learn something).
Victimization surveys agree with police report data. Crime’s down in general, way down in some cities, and violent crime especially is down, versus the 90s, and very much so versus any decade before that. There’s been a little bump post-Covid but it’s not ongoing and last I checked it was trending back down again, and it wasn’t anywhere near wiping out the progress from before.
There is some evidence/belief that increased foot traffic actually improves crime rates. I'm certainly not saying it's a magic bullet, but there's at least some hope that if these types of changes were introduced it would actually directly decrease crime. I don't have a source handy, but the concept is that the more eyes on the street the less willing people are to commit crimes. I think the exception is that some kinds of petty theft can increase with more people (pickpocketing for instance because more targets).
Pickpocketing isn't really an issue in US cities like it is in Europe. I've heard of it happening a tiny bit in extremely busy tourist areas like Times Square in NYC, but it's not something you need to be vigilant about in everyday life.
Ha, yeah, I would agree with you there. I was trying to make sure to acknowledge a potential downside of increased foot traffic. Tend to think folks like to rebut comments when they're too one-sided, but then you came along with a totally legit rebuttal to me trying to "both sides" this!
I would not ask normal people to start walking in dangerous neighborhoods in order to increase foot traffic and make it safer, those first folks are at great risk of just getting hurt.
I would, however, try to keep any safe area with good foot traffic that way, or even increase foot traffic.
I'm not sure downvotes are the right way for folks to disagree with you though I'm thinking some folks think you're trolling. But I'll assume you aren't trolling and since I asked you to reply to my question I thought I would just clarify: I wasn't suggesting that you stick people in harm's way in order to decrease crime (that would very much be the tail wagging the dog). What I was saying is that when increased numbers of people are on the street research has shown that crime decreases as a result. It's not that someone's holding a gun to the head of the new people who show up on the street. It's that those new people choose, of their own volition, to be on the street because something (investment, the government, other residents) made the street more desirable to be on and a byproduct of that increase of people is a decrease in crime (because there are literally more eyeballs watching the street (not watching for crime or to deter crime, but because criminals aren't as likely to commit crime when there are more witnesses)).
But, of course, you have a problem with the direction of causation in that case. Streets with many people on it are safe, but did the people make it safe, or did the safety bring the people?
My anecdotal experience visiting LA and SF in 2022 was wild - homeless and mentally ill people yelling, being a public nuissance, defecating on the streets, multi-story tents on the same block as the Hollywood stars. It bewildered me that the same state that houses Apple and Google can’t afford to help these people. Whilst I am empathetic and understand that these people need help, I wouldn’t let an 8 year old roam these streets, whereas I was allowed to roam my town when I was 8. Maybe it has been even worse before, and I don’t agree that making the cities walkable before these people are no longer on the streets is somehow usess, I do think that it is a more pressing issue.
I think this is a dominating perspective for a lot of people. A few neighborhoods in LA and SF get infinitely more news coverage than the thousands of quiet urban places where nothing spectacular is going wrong, which creates an illusion of widespread despair.
I’m not saying crime or homelessness don’t exist, but urban LA is just not representative.
It is shocking that the richest state in the history of the world can’t figure out how to help the people with nowhere to go.
Skid Row has been in LA since the 30s. The problem is largely that there's a lot of vested interest in painting Californian Urban Areas as bad and so negative coverage focuses on the Tenderloin, Union Square, and Skid Row.
Those people are there because of the help. Every time a municipality expands support for the homeless and addicted they get more homeless addicts. Surrounding areas will in fact put people on buses and ship them out to towns where there is more support.
This is why Housing First is such a brilliant idea. Give them help, but require them to be stably housed (i.e. on a viable path out of long-term homelessness) before they can access the help.
My town set up an apartment building specifically to house the "chronically" homeless. It cost a fortune to build (something like twice the cost per square foot as normal, or maybe more). The rationale was exactly that, give them stable housing so they can work on their addictions and life skills.
Fast forward five years, the place is a shithole. Roach-infested, apartments severely damaged and filthy, needles and garbage everywhere. Police, fire, and EMS spending a disproportonate amount of resources there.
People who are chronically homeless and addicted do not know how to live in houses. If you give them housing they will destroy it or they people they associate with will destroy it.
Sobriety has to come first. Some people won't accept that. At some point you have to stop accomodating their behavior and just say "no, that is not an acceptable way to live, and you can't do that here."
I'm not sure what's the problem is. They're getting individual apartments, right? If someone makes their assigned apartment a shithole, they should get kicked out of the program. Offer them rehab and therapy in a supervised community setting, like you say.
So you visited once? My anecdotal experience is I grew up in LA in the 80s and 90s. My middle school was shot at on three occasions I can remember. We weren't allowed to wear red, blue, or Raider's jerseys because the school district was so scared of kids getting shot for being suspected gang members. Six different intersections directly in front of elementary and middle schools near my neighborhood had no stop lights, until so many kids got hit by cars and killed that the parents finally demanded it enough that the council did something about it. My sister's best friend was murdered, smothered in her sleep by her mom's boyfriend. My second sister's best friend's mom had a fake identity because she survived getting attacked by the Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez. There was a black girl found tied to a fence and burned alive near my house whose name I never learned. My dad was punched by some guy at his birthday party where he met my mom and his friends took that guy into the concrete river ditch and shot him. As far as they tell me, no one ever got in trouble and I don't even think the authorities gave a shit. My dad was also shot in the chest with a shotgun, had his thumb cut off in shop class, broke his collarbone in football practice and didn't even get medical care for it. My uncle drowned in a river. My best friend from preschool died from touching a stray cat. My buddy in drafting class freshman year shot himself because he got a bad report card and was tired of how many times his dad beat him for something like that. I was kind of a goth and a bunch of my friends all gave themselves HIV because they were dumbasses who thought they were real vampires and drank each other's blood in the middle of a damn AIDS epidemic. In elementary school, we were often not allowed to have recess because air pollution was so bad that it wasn't safe to play outside. The nightly local news was so damn repetitive, because it was every single week an 8 year-old trying to buy ice cream from the ice cream truck getting caught in gang crossfire and shot in the head. Always the same little girl, always buying ice cream. Felt like it happened a thousand times. I was a pretty lucky kid that never got picked on, but you know why? My school had no idea what to do with someone who learned math as easily as I did, so they let me teach a remedial class when I was 12. The other kids I was helping were mostly gang bangers who came to really like me and beat the ever living shit out of any other kid that looked at me funny.
I never understand these kinds of sentiments on the Internet. Was nobody actually alive in the 90s? Have no memories? All rich white kids who grew up sheltered in the suburbs? Is Hacker News just super European and it was way better there? I get that California closed all of the state mental hospitals 35 years ago and now you have to actually see crazy people shitting on the street near your office building, but the overall reality is so immeasurably better than it was then that you guys make me feel like I'm being Mandela Effected. I somehow slipped into the timeline where Los Angeles and San Francisco weren't gang-infested murdervilles suffering from drug and disease epidemics with barely breathable air 40 years ago but were actually paradises.
Like you're talking about the Walk of Fame? Hollywood Blvd has been public drug use, street walkers, sex shops, theaters where Pee Wee Herman might cum on you, for as long as it's existed. Pretty Woman wasn't making it up except they weren't actually as attractive as Julia Roberts.
Thank you for your perspective, it does adjust mine heavily. Yes, I am a European, and your depiction of LA makes the post soviet 90s of Eastern Europe look somewhat tame in comparison. We had shootings and violence, but not nearly to the same extent.
Yet my point still stands, how can the worlds richest state not fix this?
Seattle! Violent crime is way down from the 90s. People don’t think this is obvious because violent crime rate is not actually an immediately visible problem, since the majority of violent crime takes place in or around homes (followed by hidden places like alleyways and parking garages, chosen for not being seen).
The actual visible stuff (homeless people, trash, smell of public urination, people on drugs in public, people being mentally ill in public, shoplifting) is up. And both violent crime and rich people are more evenly distributed around the city so the “violent crime near a rich person” is up. And so people react to those.
To be clear, your response to the extremely reasonable request for a source of the wild claim that you made is "it's obvious"? Am I reading you correctly?
Isn't it wonderful that we have people doing actual research on the topic, so we we can know what is actually going on instead of relying on random people's subjective impressions of what seems "obvious" from their necessarily limited viewpoints?
I lived there for a few years, and while the river walks were very pleasant, I don’t have much to say about it particularly otherwise.
The job market was pretty bad, basically limiting you to State gov or one of the handful of insurance companies around and state government work is rough (easily the most fulfilling job I’ve had, but the salary was just way too low.
Seems hard to justify with GA and NC markets nearby unless you’re staying solely for CoL or existing ties.
Better, yes. The market has grown a ton, and was ranked #1 in the country recently. Our tax base is weak, which makes it hard to compete with GVL and CHS, plus we have worse weather.
But the Bull Street district is in a totally different place from when you were here, which creates a feeling of “coming liveliness.”
Also Scout Motors is dropping a multi billion dollar plant in Columbia which will help job market
Definitely not Greenville, but we are getting there.
I'm reminded of being on an airplane sitting next to a cop who told me, "Did you know that Chicago is the murder capitol of the world?". It was fun to show her that Chicago isn't actually even in the top 10 of the US in terms of homicide.
Where do you get your news from that makes you think crime is going up?
I moved out of Lincoln Park (Chicago) 2 years ago because my wife almost got hit by a teenager stealing a car.
It wasn't the first or last car theft we witnessed.
Chicago is safe 90% of the time. Statistically speaking, you won't be a victim of a crime. That doesn't mean the crime isn't happening and it doesn't mean it's getting properly reported either. Crime is here.
Chicago has had fewer shootings this year than any time in at least a decade. There are plenty of news articles on it if you care to read up. Those of us who actually live here can visibly notice the difference.
I was referred to Cipherhood after reading glowing recommendations online. I reached out for help with digital investigation and online privacy concerns, and their team was incredibly responsive and discreet. Within days, I had detailed insights that helped me make informed decisions — all without crossing any legal or ethical lines. What impressed me most was their professionalism and the fact that everything was handled confidentially and securely. Three months later, I still have peace of mind knowing Cipherhood has my back. Highly recommended!
WA:+14122273381
Antisocial probably isn't the right word. It implies minor actions like talking loudly are the problem.
Actions like smoking/vaping, busking, drug use, littering, and peddling are usually already illegal in public transit, but widespread and difficult to enforce.
