Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | iteria's commentslogin

Everyone talks about MLK, but no one points out that people were willing to listen because Malcom X was a looming threat if MLK failed. Yes vote, but the threat of violence is what makes voting a delighted option. That's why protests exist. They are reminders that peace is a choice.

Violent revolution has merit when peaceful means break down. The rise of the guillotine jokes are the first time that people are losing faith in the peaceful option. We should hope that our leaders don't make most of use disillusioned with the idea of a peaceful transfer of power.


For anyone thinking about going that way, I highly recommend listening to the Revolutions podcast series starting here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wVvwnrBP2cVQrFf06RoO9

It'll probably disabuse you of the idea that its a good way to get things done.


It is one of the most eye opening pieces of media. Especially the French and Russian Revolutions are covered in such great detail, while staying interesting. I also loved the appendix to the show where Mike talked about "patterns" in a revolution. Learned a lot about the relationship between the government and its people.

Yeah, for me, Revolutions and The History of Rome are two of the best examples of "this is why knowing history is useful", and that history isn't actually boring - it's basically a highlight reel of some of the highest human dramas. Mike Duncan put out some incredible work.

It's never been a good way to get things done, but when you block off every other venue for change people will be much more willing to take a chance on a high risk option. Violent revolutions aren't usually the first thing people try.

Democracies that arise by nonviolent revolution, do so in part due to the threat of what comes next if the nonviolent revolution is crushed. Because if you make sure placards and petitions don't work, it eventually won't be placards and petitions anymore.

'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable', and all that.


Yeah, I get that it's a useful threat to back up the nonviolent options. I just don't think Americans have tried the nonviolent options wrt economics with any amount of real effort yet, and it's worrying/annoying to see people jumping to the nuclear option as soon as they personally hit a rough patch or start getting scared of one.

When I've gone to local government meetings, I've generally been one of only a few without gray hair. The vast majority of working-age people seemingly can't be bothered to learn the basics about who's running in a non-presidential election, let alone go argue for the boring but extremely impactful things that would actually help people out.

People need to put down the phones and put in some actual effort on fixing things before even jokingly advocating for something that would almost certainly be a mass casualty event. It's shameful.


I don't disagree. Local politics and unionizing are much more impactful than people realize.

Everyone remembers Malcolm X, but does anyone remember the names of the thousands of civilians who protested the Iranian regime and got summarily executed?

Resistance doesn't work very well against highly militarized autocratic regimes.


France had revolution and guillotines, but the UK had a strong police force and good suppression.

The UK didn't just repress its citizens, it ultimately caved to them. The voting reforms of the 19th century gave people essentially everything they wanted, at the time, and as a consequence when the rest of europe was going thru 1848 Britain was chilling. But just a few years beforehand there was legitimate fear that the government would be toppled by rioters! You can't judge centuries of history just by looking at the end result.

> Violent revolution has merit when peaceful means break down.

Robespierre first entered the chat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

Then Napoleon followed.

Make of it what you will.

[EDIT: for the downvoters - the folks who got guillotined in France were definitely bad, but the Terror was very real and very awful. It tends to be a trend with the noble overthrowers that after the initial wins they then get excited to go lop the heads off anyone else that might have ever bothered them. Be careful what you wish for.]


A house is an inflation hedge. Any calculation about investing the difference has to subtract the rent you are paying and rent goes up every year. There is no where where you can pay a rent anywhere close to what I'm paying for my mortgage in my area and I'm only 5 years into this. Of course I lucked out by locking in that sweet sub-3% rate, but still, I find it hard to believe that over time if you took the money you'd put into a house and subtracted out rent, you'd end up winning in the long term.

A house in a long term play. I didn't buy until I know where I wanted to anchor. That's the deal. I didn't want to be in a situation where late age destitution came because I couldn't afford where I wanted to live anymore. I got to see that play out with older relatives who did go the rent only route. Course I have to pay property taxes, but as it stands it's less than $200/mo and I don't imagine it'll rise above that taking inflation into account. That is something I can afford in retirement even on social security.

There is maintenance, but living in a neighborhood full of elders, a lot of it is truly optional. And honestly I think the only maintenance I've paid thus fair is the yard only because I don't want to do it myself. For me financially this is a hell of a deal with the only trade off that I must stay here. And... I'm settled enough that I'm willing to do that. I moved all over in my early career to find where I wanted to be.


> A house is an inflation hedge.

So are Stocks ...

> I find it hard to believe that over time if you took the money you'd put into a house and subtracted out rent, you'd end up winning in the long term.

You are not alone. The thing is this is such a common argument that there are a zillion rent vs buy calculators [1].

That said, yeah sub 3% the math often does work out in terms of buy (assuming you don't sell before 7 years which the average person _does_ sell before). But sub3% and holding for 30 years is actually rare.

It basically comes down to that the down payment gives renters such a headstart in gains that the homeowner takes forever to overcome it. But keep in mind they're also comparing a similar rental house to the bought house. So If you'd rent a smaller 1 bedroom apartment but only going to buy a 4 bedroom house then you're really behind in the math.

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=rent+vs+buy+calculator


The problem I have with buy vs rent calculators is that the speculative questions often end up dominating the decision. How much will rent go up in the place you rent? Nobody knows. How much will the value of the property appreciate during the period you own it. Again, this is unknowable. So you put in a range of guesses for these, and you can get it to come out as a good or bad investment depending on what you guess.

My guesses were ludicrously wrong when I did these back in 2018, relative to what has actually happened in both the rental market where I live, and the value of the house I bought. I concluded that the reason to buy was only about the non-financial aspect, and that we'd probably lose a little money all told. But it has turned out to be a six figure win in practice. Rent has gone way up, we were able to refinance to one of these very cheap loans during covid, and the property value spiked around the same time. I never would have guessed any of that. And any of it could have gone the opposite way.

So the calculators were honestly pretty useless. It's all too unknowable.


Stop - have you also accounted for 750K loan amount in mortgage interest tax deduction, and the SALT cap of 40k?

Are we looking at markets where we had massive appreciation in real estate values in the last 5 years? Because while you might say they were outsized and abnormal, the stock stock market was, too. The years of ZIRP made everything nuts.


Don't forget the mortgage interest deduction as well, which is a huge subsidy for those who can afford to buy.

Once you get habituated to it, it really is easy. When I was younger I was appalled by how much I was losing to taxes. Now I don't even glance at the line items. All that matters is that the end numbers. Hell, if I didn't need to enroll my kid in school which requires a receipt for property taxes, I wouldn't even know that literally 80% of my local taxes to schooling. My property taxes are pretty invisible to me. I don't file, my bank does. It really puts into frame why when a city gets old, they start cutting taxes and squeezing schools.

If taxes were filed automatically, honestly, I'd pay no attention at all to them, but having to sit once a year an actually look at the amount I paid, does get me to think about taxes and what they go towards, at least a little.


If my TV costed $50 and I got 3 months out of it, I'd be like, "yeah, that's about right". We don't expect investments that low to last a generation. Just because you bought a game 5 years after release and then it shutdown 3 months later, doesn't mean it's a scam anymore than coming across an old DVD years after creation and finding that it either doesn't play media or plays it distorted.


When the game was released is irrelevant. I assure you that you’d be pretty pissed if you paid £50 for a TV and it stopped working after only three months. You can claim otherwise but I’ll call you a lying bullshitter.

> coming across an old DVD years after creation

This isn’t remotely the same thing so I don’t know why you brought it up


I coslept, but I had shit milk production. Without formula my kid would be dead. My friend breastfeeds, but is an active danger when asleep, so without a crib, she'd have crushed her child.

It turns out that safe sleep rules and the availability of formula exist for a reason. Safe sleep rules exist in the west because pur beds are fundamentally different (and more dangerous) than in places here cosleeping is more common. Tp cosleep you need a certain situation that many people are not prepared to deal with.

There's literally nothing you can do about low supply at all. It's not a matter of trying for me. My body never made more than an ounce even with weeks of attempts. This is even setting aside that some people would like assistance so they can sleep and breastfeeding means dad can't take on night feeds, which is what another friend is experiencing and the child is having a bad time from her severe sleep deprivation.

And even more complications of small child. It's not as simple as "let's go back to the old days". The great days when kids died at much higher rates remember.


Sorry, I did not mean it like that, formula is fine. We also hated the breastfeeding mob.

And you're right about the rules they exist for a reason, but I think we should as parents take our space to try what works for us and our kids and what feels right.


Sometimes I just can't grasp how cruel nature is. Imagine no formula -> baby starving and you just have to accept it. When the tribe grows in numbers the baby is safe. When the tribe grows in numbers like mankind, you get cheats like formula and polio vaccine.

We're just replaying the life game on easier mode.


Some documents are not important today, but they become _critical_ in the future. We lost a guy from my team and he was the only one who happen to know how to do this one process that happens every couple of months. Having that document was crucial. There is a lot of writing that is like that. I make my LLM write PR descriptions. It's not for me now and it might be for some of the reviewer now. But it's 100% for me in 2 years when I'm trying to understand why I did any of this and what was even the intention. But I'm a dev who tends to work on long lived systems where every once in a while you desperately need to know why something was done this way 5 years ago.


Alcohol is totally legal for a child to drink in my state as long as consumed privately. It's only illegal for them to buy. My parents gave me alcohol all the time in order to teach me about it and the result was that I didn't really drink when I turned 21 or have any urge to sneak it.

That's exactly how I'm doing technology. I sign my kid up for kid accounts. And I apply parental controls.


I literally didn't learn that my own grandmother(I guess great aunt) had died until I happen to return home on the day the funeral was occurring. Everyone just assumed I knew because of Facebook and was there because of Facebook.

Sometimes it's not about closeness. It's about people's expectations about how to communicate. My cousin was in no place to do anything but post to Facebook and then collapse. My sister helped him, but didn't think to tell me because you know Facebook. I live 4 hours away so I wouldn't have learned by osmosis.

I have several stories of learning about deaths in the family way after the fact because my family is chronically on Facebook and I'm not. They all live in my hometown and it just doesn't occur to them to actually communicate with members like me who don't live there.

This is basically why I haven't deleted my Facebook even if I don't often log in.


I am sorry that it happened to you. Maybe I think that I have a solution because my wife tells me everything worth while from FB as the frequent user. Or maybe it is because I am not there at all which forces people to notify me directly by other means if necessary. Which is a problem for them but it is much a problem for me to keep in touch. So maybe if they feel some kind of symmetry in this it is fair to do it anyway to keep in touch? Anyway it is not like it is not solvable problem. People just do what they do because it is easier. Take that away and they will find another means.


Is that actually true though? Because I remember distinctly as a teen somewhere in the 00s where pockets stopped being an option. I could not and still cannot buy them in regular stores. I have to go to speciality stores or order online to get pockets. A lot of women have become resigned, but I rarely know a woman who isn't very excited about pockets for every day wear.

I also don't know a single woman who enjoyed the hunt starting in their teens for a pair of jeans that actually fit. I exclusively shop online because at least I can reference a size chart using actually real measurements. They're still lying to me but at least I have a solid chance of the clothing actually fitting.

While I don't doubt that there are women who disliked seeing the number go up on their waist size, I'm still not sure that if there was an easy sizing metric we could use, that it wouldn't get used. The example in the article was basically about a great many measurements and I could see how that would get skipped. Most people don't have tailors tape lying around, but I wonder if that international number was on everything if we'd see women like it more.


I've only managed to find one brand of jeans ever that actually fit me, and then they changed their sizing system and new ones no longer fit.

I've just stopped wearing jeans.


I noticed this and I wad enraged but it. The URL to the old page is way less easy to remember and I had to add it to my bookmarks. I'm still peeved about it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: