Your causal diagram is backwards. Identity politics isn't the path to corruption. Corrupt politicians like Trump use identity politics to gain power to practice their corruption. Nobody who wanted to bring back Christian hegemony and re-oppress minority groups is cheering that Trump is threatening to take away contracts from Musk because "their side is winning."
But in the US, “minority” means “less poticial power”. By any reasonable measure straight white “Christian” men should be about 20% of the population, yet somehow they have 80% of political power.
> Identity politics isn't the path to corruption. Corrupt politicians like Trump use identity politics to gain power to practice their corruption.
These two sentences, taken together, lead me to exactly the opposite conclusion—exploitation of identity politics allows one to gain power to enact corruption. You play into what people want by being the savior they think they need and then once in power do whatever the hell you wanted in the first place.
Idpol can exacerbate corruption. There are strong feedback dynamics.
And to reply to the comment above yours, there are material factors upstream of idpol. It's not a coincidence that sort of thing is in renaissance across the world.
There are multiple historical inaccuracies in your post.
> expanded warrantless NSA surveillance
This is exactly the opposite of what he did. According to Snowden's leaks, he had shut down email metadata collection soon after he took office. After Snowden's leaks, he limited and then shut down mass phone metadata collection.
> routinely interfered with other countries
You'll have to be specific. Did you disagree with him getting Osama bin Laden from under Pakistan's protection? He put an end to America's pasttime of installing and propping up dictators in Latin America and even criticized America's past actions in that regard, resulting in the "apology tour" attacks in conservative media.
The more typical criticism is that he was too light a touch, that he didn't help Libya set up a stable government after the 2011 NATO intervention in its civil war, that he didn't sufficiently sanction Russia for its actions in Georgia and Ukraine, and that he allowed Iran to assert dominance over Iraq.
> He shut down Occupy Wall Street hard,
Obama didn't control local police. That's Bloomberg's jurisdiction.
> bailed out the banks at our expense
Putting aside that EESA was passed by GWB instead of Obama, that's like complaining that somebody educated the kids at our expense. What would have happened otherwise? Obama passed Dodd-Frank banking regulation to try to prevent this from happening again.
> wasted the biggest wave of progressive energy on a Republican's healthcare plan
Clinton decided to run herself. She ran against Obama in 2008 and only barely lost, so it was no surprise that she ran in 2016. Obama famously stayed out of the 2016 primary until Clinton was the presumptive nominee in June.
The dems are in a weird place because they have to both give lip service to their base while also doing the exact opposite.
The alternative to bailing out the banks is bailing out the people who had money in the banks. I'm mad they got away with their crimes then and I'm mad again that Biden saved Silicon Valley Bank. The execs should have gone to jail or worse and instead they got a cool trillion dollars.
Certainly Obama didn't give in to any of OWS's demands. The income gap got wider under his presidency too. The rich kept getting richer. And money sure didn't get out of politics. I'm happy to blame all the dems for being corporate stooges not just Obama.
and ofc he pushed hard for the TPP- which even the senate seemed to think was too corporate.
The plan was bit for bit Romney's. Even with the public option which he floundered on it wouldn't have brought us up to Europe. And I can't think of any other accomplishments he had with his supermajority. We didn't even codify Roe. "Change" seems to be one tolerable healthcare plan over eight years. If Trump can restructure the whole government with barely a majority I'm happy to blame Obama and the rest of the feckless do do-nothing dems for changing basically nothing with a supermajority.
& The story I heard is Biden wanted to run but Obama talked him out of it because he thought Biden was too far left.
Nothing in that Wikipedia article disagrees with what I wrote.
> The alternative to bailing out the banks is bailing out the people who had money in the banks
At the scale of the 2008 financial crisis, figuring out individual investors to help recover from bad assets is going to be far more costly than simply keeping the banks solvent.
> I'm mad they got away with their crimes then and I'm mad again that Biden saved Silicon Valley Bank
That also didn't happen. SVB is gone.
> The income gap got wider under his presidency too.
> and ofc he pushed hard for the TPP- which even the senate seemed to think was too corporate.
TPP was a trade deal to increase trade between Asian countries (excluding China) and the US to reduce trade dependence between the signatory countries and China. The US negotiates provisions to ensure worker and environmental protections that these countries are not incentivized to do otherwise. Trump's withdrawal from the TPP was a disaster.
> Even with the public option which he floundered on it wouldn't have brought us up to Europe
Read the link I posted in my previous comment. Obama didn't even have the votes for a public option. Completely overhauling the medical funding system from scratch was and remains a nonstarter, both politically and logistically. A growing public option could have gradually led to a Medicare-for-All system.
> If Trump can restructure the whole government with barely a majority.
He also has the SC, which Obama never had, giving him sweeping executive power.
Idk, the Wikipedia link said he approved the patriot act including warrantless wire taps. "As of 2015 the administration's proposals have not been implemented and the NSA retains the authority to collect and store telephone record metadata"
SVB doesn't exist in name, but they sure pulled all the stops to save the day with free money (from everyone else! I don't care if its from a tax on income or the arguably more regressive tax on all bank account holders that they went with)
The companies who put their money in the bank uninsured were taking a risk and rather than face any consequence the government decided to swoop in and bail them out.
Imagine this happening to an individual who had any sort of uninsured catastrophe.
My memory of the TPP at the time was that it forced countries to extend copyright to match our draconian measures and let companies sue countries if their laws caused lost profits.
Re: inequality, & congress, he had a super majority. I read the article, it was fine? But I don't remember there being any sort of big comeuppance. Obamas financed by the same billionaires as everyone else.
For the public option they did have the votes if they were willing to get rid of the filibuster.
& if the problem was the courts, the Democrats had a way to change that but they decided not to and refused to ever even speculate about doing so.
They're Brazilian, so while people might not talk to them in Spanish, I'm sure people talk to them in Portuguese. They probably used the term Latinx because they are both Latin and trans, which Latin alone doesn't convey.
People complaining about words that other people use to describe themselves is a strange recent phenomenon. Just a few years ago, it was accepted that not everyone has to follow your religion.
AI is not niche. Blockchain ledgers are because centralized ledgers are cheaper, faster, and controllable by law; which is what most people want if they spend a few seconds thinking about it.
This is the typical HN 2015 crypto knowledge. It was accurate a decade ago but isn’t any more.
- Centralised ledgers are multiple orders of magnitude more expensive (2.5% to 6%, a typical blue and white square checkout is 3.5%) versus something like $0.000025 on the most active blockchain)
- At their best (2-3 second confirmation) as fast as current gen blockchain networks and an order of magnitude slower than next generation (150 milliseconds block time so expected subsecond confirmations).
- Tokens have techniques like permanent delegate for OFAC compliance.
This isn’t meant to be a personal attack, it’s just that this view of crypto is akin to saying that ‘AI is customer service chatbots that don’t work’ - correct ten years ago but not anymore.
Axiom, YC W25 is the fastest growing company in YC history hitting 100 million in revenue in five months.
You're comparing different things to try to prove something that is obviously wrong to anyone who spends a few seconds thinking about it.
> Centralised ledgers are multiple orders of magnitude more expensive (2.5% to 6%, a typical blue and white square checkout is 3.5%) versus something like $0.000025 on the most active blockchain)
I was comparing cost of recording the transaction. Think for 2 seconds. Obviously, a centralized ledger is going to be cheaper. You are comparing the cost for completing a transaction on one side with the cost of completing a transaction plus fraud fraud mitigation, chargebacks, etc. on the other.
> At their best (2-3 second confirmation) as fast as current gen blockchain networks and an order of magnitude slower than next generation (150 milliseconds block time so expected subsecond confirmations).
Same mistake. Think for two seconds. Obviously, the speed of recording a transaction on a centralized ledger is going to be faster.
Whatever you build on a blockchain ledger you can build faster and cheaper on a centralized ledger.
People fooled by crypto grifters don't have enough economics education to understand "ceteris paribus" let alone everything that comes after in an introductory course.
I’d like to start by saying “think for two seconds” is not a respectful way to communicate.
Do I need fraud mitigation and insurance to buy a coffee or groceries?
Regardless of the capabilities of centralised networks when you last bought something using a Visa card was it hundreds of milliseconds or was it two or three seconds to confirm?
> People fooled by crypto grifters don't have enough economics education
That’s a very broad statement about a lot of people highly regarded in traditional finance.
> I’d like to start by saying “think for two seconds” is not a respectful way to communicate.
I'm assuming the readers here have enough technological sophistication to understand the problem in two seconds. This is not the case among general YouTube audiences being fooled by crypto grifters.
> Do I need fraud mitigation and insurance to buy a coffee or groceries?
Do you want to be on the hook for somebody else buying coffee and groceries on your dime? Most people don't. Thus, fraud mitigation.
> That’s a very broad statement about a lot of people highly regarded in traditional finance.
That's assuming that those "highly regarded" people are fooled by crypto grifters instead of profiting off the fools.
Do you think not engaging with the actual content of the poster and purposefully misinterpreting them disingenuously is a respectful way to communicate?
Bear in mind: different buyers and different price structured. You can get more selling a vulnerability to CNE shops (say: every intelligence organization in Germany), but you'll be accepting more risk --- the payments are effectively tranched (or, equivalently, back-loaded on "maintenance" fees), and if the vulnerability dies you're S.O.L. Apple also won't make you build all the reliable exploitation enablement tooling a CNE buyer will. So: they pay less.
The author is incorrect. Semantic web (what the author wrongly calls Web 2.0) was called Web 3.0 since 2006, when Berners-Lee coined it. It was only recently that the crypto grifters appropriated that name for their scams.
"Could care less" used as a snarky response makes sense, as in, "I could care less, but I don't want to put in the effort." Using that phrase without a sarcastic intonation is still incorrect.
Could care less meaning couldn't care less. It's the same thing as how literally has come to be used with the meaning of figuratively. If you look up "could care less" in the OED you'll find it lists it under American English with the meaning "could not care less."
reply