Nah, PR text is a completely inappropriate place for a tip to appear. A PR description should describe the contents of the PR, not include unrelated, unsolicited advice. It’d be like submitting a bug fix, and saying “this PR fixes bug X, and also, have you considered using a different linter in this project?” Completely inappropriate.
Tips are also not acceptable to add to PR text. It’s like the definition of a “weed”. A “tip” in the GitHub UI would make sense. But “tips” injected into my own PR text become unwelcome ads. In any case, what may be helpful “tips” today are only a gateway to straight up paid ads tomorrow. After all, I get told all the time by adtech folks that actually, the ads and all the tracking behind them are good because aren’t I glad the ads are relevant to my interests and that I’m supporting small businesses online whose shops can only exist because of the ad infrastructure. To which I say, no, they aren’t, and that’s a lie.
I believe the idea is to support the “real” economy vs a “paper” economy. The “real” economy manufactures stuff in meat space instead of making value through abstractions like financial derivatives. The real economies are tied to a stronger middle class and national security. That’s the thesis as I understand it.
The fundamental problem is the asymmetry of value creation. Software is perhaps the pinnacle of this, and why tech companies are so unfathomably wealthy.
A team of 10 SWEs can create a product worth $1B with the cost of 10 laptops. You get ten people worth $100M each.
To create $1B in value with any kind of manufacturing business, is going to take hundreds of people utilizing millions in various costs. You end up with something like 10,000 people worth $100k each once you wind your way through all those supply lines.
You said it better. I think the idea is that certain "paper" economies are disproportionately valued in the economy when the dollar is strong. A strong dollar leads to offshoring manufacturing, which leads to an over weighted "paper" economy, which leads to an eroding middle class.
I agree, depending on what services you’re speaking of. Although I don’t know that it meets the explicit aims of the heritage foundation (which was the OPs question).
I didn't realize that such causes like 90+% income taxes, lower income inequality, single earner households, and high unionization rates are "conservative" too.
Of course because that’s how marginal tax rates work.
As to how much actual money was taxed at 91%, we don’t really have records for that but certainly the top 0.01% paid significantly more in taxes as a rate than they do today.
"That reality" was one in which the wealthy had countless deductions, loopholes, and shelters that were unavailable or inapplicable to everyone else, which (almost) everybody agreed was an undesirable state of affairs.
Actually, a past that never existed. It's pretty typically for authoritarian regimes to create idealized versions of the past as they attempt to rewrite history to better fit with their talking points and agendas.
The United States is current getting the base material for its entire economy from a country that is openly at war with it: China. If the US attacked East Tiawan because East Tiawan attacked Taiwan, East Tiawan would simply stop exporting rare earths, silver, steel, and electronics to the US. As a result the US needs to manufacture at home. So too does the EU.
The endemic anti-intellectualism among white communities (especially rural and southern) has resulted in a steady decline of white people in well-paying professions in America. If you count the Jewish as a separate group, white people are likely a minority in corporate America. Combined with social upliftment of other groups ("wokism") and the opioid crisis (that has disproportionately affected hinterland communities but immigrant groups seem immune to), white people are sliding down the American totem pole. Trumpism, alt-right, anti-woke, and the general resurgence of racist rhetoric are basically just reactions to all this.
These people want manufacturing because manufacturing is largely considered a "white people sport". If America becomes a manufacturing-first society, the hope is that it puts white people at the front and center of American society again.
The data you linked shows that Native Americans, Blacks and Whites have the highest per capita rates of overdose (in that order), which validates my claim.
White American overdose deaths per capita are 6x that of Asian-Americans.
Even if not quite true, it doesn't change my argument since it was more about the rate of change.
You can construct the definition of white collar in a way that makes it seem like it's mostly white people, but among high paying job titles within a company, absolutely I would say there are fewer than 50% non-Jewish whites.
> Even if not quite true, it doesn't change my argument
This is one of the main points of bigotry. The facts don't matter. So when a person says something obviously ridiculous like
> among high paying job titles within a company, absolutely I would say there are fewer than 50% non-Jewish whites
the proper way to interpret is "I feel like there are too many unworthy people working there," where "too many" is entirely subjective and could be as few as one.
Right, when people are talking about white people being disproportionately represented (or under-represented) in high paying corporate jobs, they're definitely looking into the cultural background of those people and determining which ones fit "non-Jewish white" rather than looking at the black guy and putting him in the "not white" category based on appearance....
In my experience, you wouldn't know most Jews are Jews unless you start quizzing them about their religious practices.
At my FAANG in Sunnyvale, I often feel like the last white guy on earth.
But I don't resent the people who stepped up to fill the jobs.
Rather, I am disappointed that these amazing jobs were basically gifted to US residents, but my fellow white people "Opted Out" of these high paying jobs.
Regulation is the only reasonable answer to this sort of problem. The specific suggestion may not be the best possible regulation, but we have several hundred years of proof that individual market-based action cannot solve what is basically an insurance problem.
It’s largely a problem of how these tools are packaged, but while it’s certainly nice to have an LLM check your spelling, or review your grammar or style or usage, you should never allow them to actually edit your document directly.
First of all, they will make substantive changes you didn’t intend. The meaning will get changed, errors will be introduced. Tone will be off, and as the author says, your voice will disappear. There is no single “correct” way to write something. And voice and tone are conveyed with grammatical and usage variation. Don’t give that up to a robotic average.
Secondly, you will never improve, or even maintain, your own writing skills if you don’t actively engage with the suggested changes. You also won’t fully realize half the purpose of writing, which is to understand the topic better yourself. Doing the work of editing your piece will help you understand the subject even better. If you just let the machine “fix” your errors, you’ll become a worse writer and less of an expert over time.
It’s a spot that will easily be replaced with paid ads, for sure. Not sure why it wouldn’t be better to just inject this sort of message into the UI instead of editing the PR text itself. (Except that the team implementing it probably couldn’t get the UI team to agree.)
It’s going to be impossible to have an LLM that can fulfill all the roles people want. They lie and hallucinate which is bad for some purposes like research, but good for others, like making fictional stories. Likewise, some purposes require sympathy and some require critique. An LLM won’t be good at all of them.
reply