> He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him.
That sounds an organizational issue. I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible. That is, a combination of the job of a general and a PM. Controlling the information may be necessary for survival, but it should not be the job description.
> I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible.
LOL, reality is very different. Manager first of all is working to keep his position, second to get promoted. Most of them. For keeping he need to become irreplaceable. For that they create kill zone around eliminating competitors. Working against those with brain, not promoting, giving negative reviews, creating 'cases', taking credits for others job. Making those who can leave. I've seen a lot of this shit. This creates a local depressive shithole. It can go for decades in monopolies and in low competition markets.
People may have forgotten what happened back in early 2000s. Outsourcing was all the rage, and people in the US were really concerned. And then it came the explosive growth of internet, of mobile, of cloud, of social network, and etc. And then discussion died or at least dwindled enough that we stopped paying attention.
It looks to me that massive outsource means that companies turn to focus on incremental improvements, which won't require rapid communication in the same location. Besides, the tech has been growing amazingly for decades, other countries have caught up and therefore have growing number of talent. It's a matter of time for them to own more R&D.
Outsourcing in the 90's/2000's failed because you didn't want to deskill engineers and reduce their scope, you wanted Jeff Dean building pagerank and building Google.
Outsourcing happens when the economy forces companies to cut costs. When innovations return substantial growth, most companies don't think much about the costs. We have a rough economy, bad tariff policy, a weakening dollar, and immigration policy that's reducing the overall US population (and with it, spend in the economy). All those factors push companies to need to cut costs
In a way, isn't it what the Americans and even the current administration want? We want a strong Europe who is keen on preserving and developing the glorious modern civilization that it created. We want a strong Europe who can build and innovate instead of regulating and fining. In contrast, we certainly don't want see the disastrous joke like Northvolt. We certainly don't want to see the joke that BASF shut down its domestic factories and invested north of 10B in China for state-of-the-art factories. Oh, and we certainly don't want to see a Europe that couldn't defeat Russia and couldn't even out-manufacture Russia, even though Russia's GDP is merely of Guangzhou's.
The current US administration wants a captive Europe. One that buys its defense, energy and technology products from them. One that sells its territory, regulations and know-how to them.
Ask the Department of State if they'd like a European-sized French attitude and strategic autonomy.
Current admin has been on record for years saying the same thing. Warning EU about russia, warning EU about China, warning them about not innovating.
I don't know if this was planned internally but it seems the way they figured out how to get EU to actually do something is to make it seem like big bad trump is going to hurt them.
Current admin has gotten more out of EU than 20years of asking nicely.
Before:
US: "please increase military spending"
EU: "no"
US: "please do not support our advesaries"
EU: "builds nordstream"
US: "stop killing innovation"
EU: " more regulation"
Now:
US: "We will invade greenland"
EU: "omg we need to invest in greenland and increase its military support, we will send more troops immediately!"
US: "we will pull out of nato"
EU: "omg we hate US we need to massively increase military spending and industry"
US: "our tech companies will not listen to you"
EU: "omg big bad america, we should try to make out own"
I don't like it but at the same time, it works? Let EU rally against US who cares as long as they actually do something.
Simply put absolute best thing for US is a strong EU. China is an advesary that will take the entire US system to challenge if EU can handle the rest then it's a win.
> Before: US: "please increase military spending" EU: "no"
What this meant between the lines for 60+ years is “please increase military spending on US overpriced weapons that we gonna sell you, weapons will be degraded versions of native counterparts and don’t think about making your own independent military industry. Oh by the way bring those weapons when we will do 20 years of failed occupation in Middle East, because we are the only country in NATO that triggered article 5 and bunch of Euros died for nothing. Because that’s the deal, we protect you, for the economic price of helping our imperial hegemony since 1940s stay at the top, but suddenly we decided this is a bad deal after all.”
It really did not mean that -- it meant to increase spending to the targets set by NATO and to meet realistic defense needs.
A lot of EU weaponry was and is produced in the EU and the US has known that all along, cooperated and fostered it. The Leopard tank, the Eurofighter, the Rafale, the Lynx, the FV432, the Gazelle -- there is a long list of domestic weapons systems. I'm not sure if they still can do it, but the English made nuclear submarines. The US has at various times partnered with Europe on the development of these systems, and Europe has been able to produce almost all major weapons systems continuously since the end of World War 2.
Europe's much weakened defense posture -- and weakened defense industry -- are their own fault and the result of their own choices. At one time, European countries had much, much larger militaries and could sustain manufacturing of their specific weapon systems -- their own tanks, APCs -- but not after the military drawdowns following the end of the Cold War. There are at least 3 major domestic European tank types -- the Leopard, the Challenger and the Leclerc -- but only the Leopard is manufactured anymore. Europe should probably have consolidated on the Leopard a long time ago.
The US weapons are not "overpriced", and certainly not compared to European weapons, beyond the sense in which basically all western weapons are overpriced. One reason we see consolidation on US weapons in Europe is that the US weapons are frequently very good, having received a lot of use, but also because the US still has some scale in its manufacturing capabilities.
> I'm not sure if they still can do it, but the English made nuclear submarines.
Not really. The Polaris and Trident SLBM systems as well as the nukes they carry are US designs that the UK is allowed to use. And while their current PWR2 reactor is a British design, it is lacking. Therefore the next PWR3 design will be based on US S9G reactors.
The Trafalgar class were nuclear attack submarines made at Barrow-in-Furness shipyard in Cumbria. The current Astute class were also made there.
A nuclear submarine is one with nuclear propulsion, not nuclear weapons (just like a diesel-electric submarine is one with a diesel engine and batteries, not diesel weapons).
It never ceases to amaze me the contortions some people put themselves through to make this US administration seem sane or even vaguely interested in the flourishing of Europe, Canada or the wider west.
When the US points out faults with what EU is doing, the EU just digs its heels deeper out of spite, instead of self reflecting that maybe the US might be right.
It's not contortions, it's the truth, since these points have nothing to do with this US administration specifically.
Contortions is trying to blame EU's multi decade political faults on Trump.
Germany: Ties its economy to Russia despite warnings from the US
Russia: Invades Ukraine
Germany: Destroys its manufacturing economy after energy prices spike from decoupling from Russian gas
Germany and libs/dems: This is all Trump's fault
Something tells me when the 'something' is a major trade deal with China suddenly it'll be 'oh my god how could you'. The US wants a EU vassal, what they're going to get is an EU that realigned itself to be politically and economically equidistant from the US and China.
The whole point is the USA has been complaining that the EU was/is reducing itself to a vassal. No matter what the USA said or did before they didn't seem to care that they had no power anymore because the USA was there to take care of them.
The EU can't realign itself with China because that would destroy the last fragile bits of the EU economy that are left. They are already having issues with the excess supply lands on their shores even since the USA started tariffs with China. They can't deal with this long term.
No, the USA does not, in any way, and has never wanted or even accepted EU countries being independent. They wanted the EU to spend more on US weaponry, and maybe on their own - but would have vehemently opposed any attempt by any EU country to buy Russian, Chinese, Iranian or any such weaponry. They want the EU to stop regulating American companies, but they certainly don't want EU companies being too successful in the USA. They certainly wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market, while of course insisting that the EU and other NATO members buy US built weaponry.
They certainly wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market, while of course insisting that the EU and other NATO members buy US built weaponry.
This is really ridiculous. There are many successful EU vendors of defense technology to the US military. Safran, Schmidt & Bender, Heckler & Koch, Saab, Glock, Fabrique National -- there is a long list. The USA has built real partnerships in these areas.
One amusing example is the C7 and C8. These are AR-15 (M16) variants made by Colt Canada and adopted by the militaries of the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway; and used by special forces in the UK.
Where are you getting your information from, that the US wouldn't allow wouldn't allow EU tech companies access to the US defense market?
I'm not sure that's how it is. Sure NATO countries aren't keen on any of the members being reliant on weapons from potential NATO enemies, for example Turkey buying Russian S-400s but it doesn't mean the countries aren't mostly independent.
Likewise NATO countries aren't keen if one of their members gets a leader who rolls out the red carpet to the Russians and threatens to invade other NATO states. It's not like all the members have to do what the US likes.
The right play is to maintain relationships (including arms trading) with multiple major powers - as Canada's PM very deftly pointed out at Davos. Getting closer to China doesn't mean exchanging one master for another - it can and should be a way to increase the alternatives available, without going all the way in the other direction.
> The EU would also have opposed it if the US bought Russian, Chinese or Iranian weaponry.
This is such an implausible counter-factual that I can't even begin to imagine what would have actually happened. Still, I doubt any more than some "public letters" would have been issued, whereas I'm sure that the opposite would have resulted in actual economic pressure from the USA against the EU/NATO country that would have dared, under any administration.
I mean, you offered a basically similar, implausible counterfactual. I think we can agree that it is at least parties that the EU would have opposed purchases of Chinese, Russian or Iranian weapons by the USA and vice versa -- but Russia and Iran have been sanctioned for long periods of time (Iran, basically continuously) by both the EU and the USA, and Russia is the main territorial threat to the EU, so maybe only China is really an interesting possibility here.
Arms trading with China is probably not a good idea at all.
I don't see much sign of the EU becoming a Chinese vassal as in relying on it for defence in return for being told what to do. Trading with China is not the same thing.
No. The US wants the EU to be a vassal, this should be obvious. Why would they want an EU that is more capable of acting against US interests?
The US wants EU to be a vassal, but got tired of paying the protection money for that. Now they are trying, and failing, to keep the EU under their control despite bringing less to the table every day.
Or more obviously the US views China as an existential threat that is about to pop.
US has numerous public docs stating China is prepping for war and has WW2 levels of production. US knows it will be out manufactured in this conflict.
So the US needs:
1. Fully focus on China without distractions.
2. Allies able to handle their own security or help in the fight.
3. Weaken the smaller axis forces as much as possible now before the big event occurs.
Through this lens it alls lines up pretty nicely. Every single world event including US poking europe all work towards these goals.
As of now:
1. EU is finally spending on spending
2. Nato has expanded (sweden)
3. Russia is weakened
4. Iran is weakened
5. Oil production is secure (venuzuela, US internal, middle east)
6. East asia is also spending more on military and heavily aligning with the west (more bases in phillipines)
To me this is going about as smoothly as anyone would expect the buildup to WW3 would go. And it's all going pretty well for western forces. The west is now stronger than it has ever been and getting stronger and the axis forces are all weaker and getting weaker.
You really think EU is going to ally with China over japan, south korea, philipines, and Australia?
You really think Russia's current number 1 ally is all of a sudden going to be best friends with EU?
China and North korea are ACTIVELY supporting a war in Europe! China has openly threatened Australia. There are literal north korean troops shooting Europeans right now. Who is north korea's number 1 supporter?
> US: "We will invade greenland" EU: "omg we need to invest in greenland and increase its military support, we will send more troops immediately!"
> US: "we will pull out of nato" EU: "omg we hate US we need to massively increase military spending and industry"
It's in both the EU and the US's interest to ensure NATO is the strongest partnership possible and the US's actions over the last few weeks have undermined it almost perfectly.
If you look at actions and results the western alliance is the strongest it has ever been and going to be significantly stronger over the next decade.
Again my point is a theory that either EU and US found a way to make EU citizens get behind military spending or the US found a way to manipulate EU to do it.
You'll know if US and EU are actually not aligned if EU sides with China over USA (which would be suprising to say the least)
Tell me which NATO country came crying, triggered NATO Article 5 and as a consequence a good number of EU NATO (and even non-NATO) soldiers have died for the sole interests of said country?
Why are you moving the goalposts from your parent's point?
Yes, the middle eastern wars were a huge issue form the US, but that doesn't explain EU own goaling itself for 20+ years with terrible policies and choices, with or without helping the US in the middle east.
I am saying that for last 30 years actions of European NATO counterparts was not "undermining the relationship".
Also since 2014 there was a 10 year plan devised to get everyone to strictly follow 2% budget commitment. Which happened before you and I even heard about trump starting a presidential campaign (or even if it was there was nothing about NATO, etc). This happened (better later than never) due to ruzzian attack on eastern Ukraine and with a nudge from Obama administration.
Due to 2022 total war from ruzzia against Ukraine - I believe right now there are talks to commit up to 5% in long run, with at least up to 3.5% in next decade.
I know that Europe doesn't have great PR team, but USA is getting better and better at gaslighting (ruzzia has decades of experience in divide and conquer tactics) that Europeans are allegedly freeloading. Europe has it's problems, but it's solving them democratically, whereas USA needs to see herself in a mirror, before it's too late.
My understanding is that the 2% budget commitment was met or exceeded by all NATO countries only as late as 2025. The Obama administration ended in 2017.
Europeans not taking care of themselves has been "undermining the relationship".
If this is some kind of move, fair play, but its ham fisted because rank and file westerners across the world have lost respect and faith in America, that wont be rebuilt by some other president. Nobody will want fighter jets etc controlled by America. Perhaps USA is fine with it but to me it feels severely damaging.
The western alliance as of today is about as strong as its ever been.
No it is not. Very few people in Europe believe that the US would uphold NATO Article 5. The US did arguably not uphold the Budapest memorandum. Allies have stopped sharing intelligence with the US in many areas because they don't trust the US anymore (Trump would burn allied assets in a Truth Social post). Trump has done a lot of bidding for Putin in the Ukraine-Russian war because he does not care about a good outcome for the rest of the Western alliance, he only cares about some peace prize or whatever.
The Western alliance is almost shattered, NATO is on its lasts legs (well, technically, NATO with the US, I think a new NATO with Canada and Europe would rise from its ashes).
"Shattered" as they have together massively increased military spending and weakened their enemies at every step through heavy cooperation. And added sweden to nato.
If you ignored words actions show a big difference.
No. The US does not want an independent EU.
It wants an EU that lets any US company do here whatever it wants.
It wants the EU to split up so it can force bad trade deals on our countries.
We don't want a trade deal that lets you sell chlorinated chicken or other stuff that is currently banned here.
The US wants us to spend more on military but not on our own weapons but to spend all our money buying US made stuff.
Now what the president of the US achieved is that we want to spend more to develop our own local alternatives and improve them, not buy more from the US. Why would we buy from you if your president threatens to invade Greenland?
Also - military spending was increased not because Trump bullied us into it doing it. It was seen as necessary because of russian attack on Ukraine. Trump was not some genius diplomacy mastermind. He is a man child that is pissed of for not getting the Nobel peace price. How childish is that? This is not some person who can be taken seriously in any way.
Regulation is good, Micro-USB and USB-C for phones and computer chargers is better than the dozens of different chargers that was before. Only Apple was unhappy and didn't want it.
We don't want big US tech companies to steal our personal data and do whatever they want wit it.
Also - now trump is pissed off at Canada for trying to get a trade deal with China, when it was he himself who first said Canada should become a part of the US, started with random bs tariffs on canadian goods, etc. What else can you expect from Canada, why should they not try to find a more reliable trade partner? How can it be rational, what Trump is doing?
> I don't know if this was planned internally but it seems the way they figured out how to get EU to actually do something is to make it seem like big bad trump is going to hurt them.
This is an interesting take. You appear to be suggesting that the US has the EU's best interests at heart.
It ignores the fact that, on the rare occasion the Trump administration was not actively trying to undermine the EU, their "helpful advice" has always boiled down to "you should be more like us, and not being like us means you're failing."
My opinion, which I believe is common among Europeans, is that the opposite is true.
I would like to think US has EU interest at heart, a kind of tough love you would hope. But even if they don't all of their reactions have actively helped the US geopolitical goals.
> You appear to be suggesting that the US has the EU's best interests at heart.
The US might or might not have Europe's best interest at heart or the European peoples' best interest at heart. But certainly not the European Union's best interest.
Honestly so often I take my EU consumer and worker rights for granted, only to hear that they simply don't exist for 90+% of Americans. Amd then I wonder how they even live over there.
I looked up to the US as a kid. Then I went to the US about 8-10 times in my teenage years (lost the count) due to my dad's work. We travelled through ~20 states. Only during those trips I realized in what poor life standards most Americans live. My wife lived in the US for a year and had the same experience. She also found that average Americans have real weird believes about the rest of the world (this was in the nineties), like they would ask her whether Hitler is still alive, whether Europe only has US radio stations, and some believed that Europeans don't have fridges.
Another thing that surprised me was the segregation. One time we went out to eat something while crossing some states. Apparently we drove into a black neighborhood, and we walked into a large place with a buffet. And suddenly almost everyone was looking at us completely stunned. Then the other shoe dropped, we were the only white people, and they were probably surprised that white people showed up. They were extremely nice to us, but for me it also uncovered how weird the US is.
Slavery was a major economic drain, it wasnt a boon to the us economy. There is a reason the south remained agricultural and under developed, it was slavery.
They're going to the US for the VC funds and the capital markets, which is America's great competitive advantage globally. In the few industries I went through (PaaS, Health, Finance) what I got was that the regulatory environment in Europe was welcome for being stable and clear, or existing at all in a few cases. There's been one case where I've seen regulation being an issue and preventing business from being fully conducted in Europe, and that was related to banking (in that instance that company had to be set up in Dubai).
Europe will then redirect the 300B euros it was investing in US treasuries annually to Eurobonds, while redirecting the $300M in purchasing from US companies to EU companies. This is biting the hand that feeds the US.
Europe will buy LNG from Canada instead of the US, and continue to purchase imports from China. I agree though that a strong EU is needed, in part to defend against the US, as well as Russia (until the Russian economy reaches failure). CATL is currently building the largest battery factory in Europe in Spain.
>"I agree though that a strong EU is needed, in part to defend against the US, as well as Russia (until the Russian economy reaches failure)."
So after Russia fails "a strong EU" is no longer needed? Also waiting for Russian economy to fail may prove to be forever and not even desirable. Changing the system of government to one that treats people like it should is much better goal
Putin will need to die for Russia to change. Change is not possible in Russia until then. A strong EU is required post Russia.
Until then, starve the Russian economy of fossil fuel export revenue (which funds their war efforts). They have liquidated a majority of their gold reserves and have exhausted a majority of their military hardware stockpiles. If we wanted to wrap this up, we’d be bombing their oil and gas export facilities, but it appears we haven’t made it to that milestone yet.
lol hahaha Europe will "say" and maybe in a few decades they might get around to starting some of that. Europe still buys gas from Russia; can't even ween itself off it during a war.
> lol hahaha Europe will "say" and maybe in a few decades they might get around to starting some of that. Europe still buys gas from Russia; can't even ween itself off it during a war.
> Under the agreement, the EU will halt Russian liquefied natural gas imports by end-2026 and pipeline gas by September 30, 2027.
> The law allows that deadline to shift to November 1, 2027, at the latest, if a country is struggling to fill its storage caverns with non-Russian gas ahead of winter.
> Russia supplied more than 40% of the EU's gas before 2022. That share dropped to around 13% in 2025, according to the latest available EU data.
> The European Commission plans to also propose legislation in the coming months to phase out Russian pipeline oil, and wean countries off Russian nuclear fuel.
Considering Russian's invasion started February 24, 2022, it's fairly impressive Europe has only needed ~5 years to disconnect entirely from Russian gas supplies. Better late than never. They've proven they have the capacity to achieve these objectives in a timely manner, when motivated.
You also previously asserted, without citations, that Canada could not export natural gas to anyone but the US, so forgive me if I don’t take your opinion in high regard as it relates to global energy trade.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45919165 ("This line here makes it clear to me you've never really researched any of this. Canada doesn't have the ability to export that to anywhere but the USA and refuses to even consider building another pipeline." -- tick_tock_tick - November 13th, 2025)
I'm confident you could make more factually accurate and less emotionally driven comments if you tried. Please consider it. Very little of the information I rely on for my comments is paywall gated, they are web searches away for your consumption and mental model enrichment.
I've never argued with you that they can't export any oil of course they can. I'm simply stating they don't have the capacity to shit away from exporting to the USA nor do they plan to build said capacity. Maybe if Alberta's proposal actually gets fast tracked approval and isn't bogged down in a decade of court battles with environmental and indigenous groups and I'll consider changing my view.
lol hahaha Europe will "say" and maybe in a few decades
In the local harbor, they built an LNG terminal in 6 months (Eemshaven, NL).
The Russian invasion was on February 24, 2022. They opened an LNG terminal on September 8, 2022.
My primary lessons of previous crises (2008-2010 financial crisis, COVID, 2022 invasion) is that under pressure EU/EU countries can do things very quickly and do things well. The pundits always say the next crisis breaks the EU, but it always ends up with the EU being stronger and more unified than before.
Even starting from scratch with the software, I'd make the opposite bet. Imported energy on the scale of nations a lot of expensive physical hardware. Given the numbers people throw around when talking about upgrading the electrical grid, think trillions*.
Software also has the potential to be made by forking open source projects. That Canonical Ltd. (London) has Ubuntu is already a decent foundation, a wheel that probably doesn't need to be fully re-invented.
* ironically, one of my hobby-hills on green energy is that I have noticed that a genuinely global electrical grid fat enough to get resistance down to 1 Ω the long way around, would only cost a few hundred billion in aluminium. Currently only China makes enough to consider it, but still, the BOM for such a project is much less than the price of all the manpower needed for the last 100 miles.
I think they should (in practice there could be something in the middle). Yes, they may have more bickering with the US, but that's just part of the messy diplomatic process. At the end of the day, we want to see strong allies that share a compatible value system with us. I'm actually more optimistic too: a stronger Europe will earn more respect because of their strength. And that respect will lead to more negotiation instead of more bickering.
> isn't it what the Americans and even the current administration want?
no, I certainly do not read that at all. This is not what the U.S. wants -- a genuinely free EU that has its own economy and source of tech entirely independent of the U.S. That is quite the opposite of what the U.S. wants but it inevitable that it is what the U.S. will get.
Guangdong Province at the moment has about 140,000,000 people. About the same as Russia so it figures. Also it is not the best idea to estimate GDP of Russia in USD and using US criteria.
Seen from Europe, the current US administration doesn't want a Europe, end of story.
Trump 1.0 already tried to convince EU countries to exit the EU.
Trump 2.0 keeps insulting the EU, threatening the EU economically and threatening it militarily. To the point where even most of the far right EU candidates who were betting on being the ${EU COUNTRY} Trump are now doing their best to display how they're very much not Trump.
What a joke of a comment. Trump and Musk and Vance explicitly support every anti-EU party in a half-dozen EU countries. Cuz they wanna make EU stronger, durrr.
Is it really though?
We have strong labour laws, consumer laws, antitrust laws, personal information laws and so on because the majority of us want it. We understand that this do not maximize growth, and consider that worth it.
In fact, the most of us sees the current US administration as a very big joke.
> In a way, isn't it what the Americans and even the current administration want? We want a strong Europe who is keen on preserving and developing the glorious modern civilization that it created.
This is a pretty ridiculous statement.
It is clear that the US under current administration is absolutely hostile to EU, and that the US in general is untrustworthy when a good portion of its people see the actions of the current administration as desirable.
> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have
My guess is that those people have different incentives. They need to build a portfolio of open-source contributions, so shame is not of their concern. So, yeah, where you stand depends on where you sit.
What I failed to understand is why only in the US the voting procedure is so controversial. Want paper vote? That's racism. Want counting in a day? That's xenophobia. Want to limit certain time window for counting? That's definitely racism. It's funny that the US criticized that EU countries were getting less democratic. Well, at least those countries have a much more sane voting process.
> Want paper vote? That's racism. Want counting in a day? That's xenophobia. Want to limit certain time window for counting? That's definitely racism.
This characterization is reductive and basically a straw-man.
The principle underlying opposition to "counting in one day" is basically that every vote that is correctly placed in time should be counted, and as many people as possible should have access to voting. Mail-in voting, for example, has been shown to increase voter turnout by making voting more convenient, but you have the question of what to do with ballots that are received late. There are pretty good arguments for counting all mail-in ballots that are postmarked before the election, and I don't think "xenophobia" is among them.
In America specifically, all decisions relating to access to voting are considered against a backdrop of our widespread and systematic attempt to restrict voting. A modern example of this is related to wide disparity in the number of polling places, and therefore the amount of time required to vote, in "urban" regions of some southern states as compared to rural regions.
I have never heard of a racism-based opposition to paper ballots. I think you just made that up.
I think these claims are badly miscontrued at best, and match one party's outlook. The Republican Party has tried inhibiting voting in ways that benefit them, often by making it more difficult for minorities to vote.
Many of those tactics existed on a large scale in the South before the Voting Rights Act, and when the Supreme Court recently invalidated the Act, many have returned. For example, reducing voting locations in minority areas so people have to travel far and wait longer. Texas and possibly other states have criminalized errors in voter registration (iirc), making it dangerous to register voters. Georgia, and others, conducted a large-scale purge of voting rolls, requiring people to re-register. Requiring government-issued ID prevents many people from voting, often poor people and immigrants who lack what wealthier people are accustomed to. Florida's voters passed a ballot measure enabling ex-felons to vote; the Republicans added a law requiring full restitution to be paid (iirc) before they could vote, effectively canceling the ballot measure vote. And these days almost any Democratic victory is called fraud; remember the 2000 election, the lawsuits, riots, threats against ordinary citizens working on local election boards and on elections, etc.
Directly addressing the parent's claims: I've never heard of paper votes being called racism - could you share something with us? Calls to limit counting are often accompanied by calls to limit the voting period, invalidate votes received later (e.g., due to US mail delays), and calls to greatly restrict mail-in voting - all things that make it more difficult for people working two-three jobs.
The Democrats have their flaws; I've never seen them try to limit voting. That should be something everyone in the US - and in the world - agrees on: Do all we can to enable everyone to vote.
There are historical factors that contribute to those things you brought up. American minorities are disproportionately affected by things like limited hours, for example. You'd know that if you were an American POC.
GP has also taken these issues and personalized them. They're about impact and access, not whether the person raising the idea is racist or a xenophobe or whatever.
You'll find those claims in sibling comments to yours, so they are clearly pretty real!
(At the time of writing this comment there's a sibling claiming that the comment cannot possibly understand this POV because they are not "an American POC.")
The specific comment by popalchemist you're referring to is actually fine (they're talking about voter suppression, which is a problem in the US), and isn't at all one of the claims that hintymad says people are making.
Politicians just use those accusations as cover for conducting fraud or enabling the conditions that they inherently benefit from. There's no reason to not use paper, ID checks, and same-day accounting.
> There's no reason to not use paper, ID checks, and same-day accounting.
Sure there is. ID checks make it impossible for people who don't have government-issued ID to vote, which is a lot of people; and furthermore ID checks don't actually improve election security. Same-day counting is impossible if you are going to count all mail-in votes that were sent before the deadline.
To be clear, I'm not saying that politicians aren't agitating for conditions that benefit them. That's there job. But I also believe in supporting access to voting and fair elections, and at least some of the politicians' arguments help achieve those ends.
Yeah, I forgot voter ID. All democratic countries mandate voter ID except the US and another couple(?). Yeah, as if only the US has the "voter access" problem
There are many reasons not to do those things, "lalala not listening" isn't an excuse.
It's usually very simple, too. For voting ID: ID isn't evenly distributed, and that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
So if you require ID, then obviously you will suppress some demographics more than others. That creates a bias. Again, not opinion.
This can be solved. You will notice none of the people championing voter ID make even a thinly-veiled attempt to solve it. Instead they say stupid things like "oh wow so black people can't get ID now? Uh, buddy, I think YOU'RE the racist one!"
Surely what you want is to enable everyone to vote, and then to count all the votes?
In the UK where I have most experience of this stuff, there are many, many small polling stations, and usually you just walk right in and vote without queueing. The longest I ever had to wait to vote was about 30 minutes. Votes are counted locally and results usually declared within a handful of hours. Some take longer due to recounts etc if the tally is very close in a certain area, but the whole thing is pretty uncontroversial and pretty low-effort.
Here in Australia, voting is compulsory, it's always on a Saturday, and there's usually a charity sausage-sizzle at the polling place, it's sorta fun. And again, AFAICT (I'm not a citizen yet) the infrastructure is over-provisioned so people aren't waiting around forever.
From what I hear about the US, in some places voting can take hours, it seems like the number of polling places is deliberately limited to make it hard for people to vote, and you have those weird/horrible rules cropping up like it being illegal to hand out water to people in line, which seems purely designed to discourage electoral participation. And then you have all these calls to stop the count after a certain time etc.
It's deeply weird from an outside perspective. If counts are taking too long, if people are having trouble voting, provision more... but of course it seems clear that there are motives for underprovisioning, because one or other group thinks it will benefit them.
> Want counting in a day? That's xenophobia. Want to limit certain time window for counting?
Why do either of these matter? If you assume paper voting in-person is secure, then there is zero reason to also limit the time spent counting or the time window for counting. Anything past that point is clearly trying to fill some sort of agenda for the sake of disenfranchising people who cannot adhere to the times you're trying to set.
Honest question: isn't it just a matter of time before US dollar loses its dominance, given that US has been losing its manufacturing business? I mean, can people really keep investing in the US market if they need less and less stuff produced by the US?
If The US goes to war against China, we are screwed, because we outsourced our manufacturing to China. We cannot quickly ramp up our manufacture of ships, tanks, aircraft or ammunition. Not only do we lack manufacturing capacity, the entire supply chain is in China / Asia.
In addition, China leads in the critical technologies need for drone oriented warfare, like we are seeing in Ukraine.
In particular, the pentagon has so many suppliers in China. Oh, the KPIs (key pharmaceutical ingredients) are produced by China too. We even had shortage of saline solution when China was having a supply crunch. So when a conflict, let alone a war, broke out with China, what do we do? We ask China to supply us the war logistics?
A fun story, China has the best automated seafood processing factories that meet all kinds of regulations in the world. It's cheaper, a lot cheaper, for Japan and Alaska to send their seafood to China to process, and then sell back to the domestic market. And it has nothing to do with cheap labor but deep R&D of China. So, when war broke out, many people won't be able to enjoy cheap seafood either.
I don't understand how people can ignore a simple fact (is it Milton who pointed that out?): Manufacturing is a "doing" business, not a "knowing" business. Our expertise is forged on the shop floor, not dreamed up in a boardroom, and certainly not bought through outsourcing. There is so much tacit knowledge that manufacturing capability is a living system. It lives in the collective experience of the workforce and the rhythm of the line, not in static documents.
Oh maybe this is the time to quota Thomas Joseph Dunning: With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.
Software can leave your country in a fraction of a second. Manufacturing is infrastructure. This is also basic. Manufacturing in the US is shrinking, comparatively with other countries that actually make things. People just think they can just play with numbers, categories and dollar values to hide it.
The US has been playing a currency game since 1980 to make up for the loss of the free money it got for reconstructing Europe and Japan, and using that money to buy things from impoverished workers in China. And as China got on its feet through careful planning and management, it moved to India, Pakistan, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, anywhere that was willing to stomp on its workers and pollute its air and water.
Now China has gotten to the point that it is a viable alternative to the US, so the US can't unilaterally set terms anymore for its suppliers. It's dumping US treasuries. It's competing for natural resources in countries that the US just tried to topple and steal their natural resources through sieges that ironically served to cut the US's legs from under them, giving China a huge discount. The game is up.
China going from nowhere to the greatest economy on the planet in 50 years is what happens when you manage and cultivate manufacturing. US real estate and an economy run on luxury consumption is what you get when you outsource manufacturing and play word games to cover it up. We literally can't tariff China significantly, they could crush our economy just by embargoing us like we freely embargo everyone else. That's the power of a manufacturing base. We might want to fix our bridges, too.
Case in point, it's news that Canada leaned toward partnering with China when having dispute with the US, but it would be a joke 20 years ago. It's a humiliation that the US brought upon itself: you can't produce things that people need, then don't blame that people will have leverage in other places.
> Why is manufacturing so special? As opposed to something like software?
I assume that dollar will be strong if people want to buy stuff from the US, which requires using the US currency. Software indeed is a strong sector. I'm just not sure (as due to my ignorance) if they compensate sufficiently the trade deficit. For instance, if advertisers use Instagram in Europe, they wouldn't need the US dollar to pay for the service, right? If there's no virtual export happens, I'd assume there won't be any need for the US currency either.
> Also, manufacturing in the US is growing not shrinking. For a long time.
What about market share? I remember that the US had more than 65% of the manufacturing marketshare 25 years ago. Actually, I'm more concerned about the long-term national security and prosperity of the US, and I think they are tied to a robust manufacturing sector. But that's different topic.
A weak dollar is good for manufacturing and a strong dollar is bad for it. China tightly controls to the Yuan to purposely keep it's value low to benefit it's manufacturing. The current US administration wants to something similar for the US to boost manufacturing.
I think that's foolish and backwards thinking. The US doesn't really need more manufacturing; it had relatively low unemployment, a healthy economy, etc. The US is a service country. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world and does none of it's manufacturing in the US. Why wouldn't people invest in Apple?
It looks there's a difference this time: copying the details of other people's work has become exceedingly easy and reliable, at least for commonly tried use cases. Say I want to vibe code a dashboard, and AI codes it out. It works. In fact, it works so much better than I could ever build, because the AI was trained with the best dashboard code out there. Yes, I can't think of all the details of a world-class dashboard, but hey, someone else did and AI correctly responds to my prompt with those details. Such "copying" used to be really hard among humans. Without AI, I would have to learn so much first even if I can use the open-source code as the starting point: the APIs of the libraries, the basic concepts of web programming, and etc. Yet, the AI doesn't care. It's just a gigantic Bayesian machine that emits code that nearly probability 1 for common use cases.
So it is not that details don't matter, but that now people can easily transfer certain know-how from other great minds. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), most people's jobs are learning and replicating know-hows from others.
But the dashboard is not important at all, because everyone can have the same dashboard the same way you have it. It's like you are generating a static website using Hugo and apply a theme provided on it. The end product you get is something built by a streamline. No taste, no soul, no effort. (Of course, the effort is behind the design and produce of the streamline, but not the product produced by the streamline.)
Now, if you want to use the dashboard do something else really brilliant, it is good enough for means. Just make sure the dashboard is not the end.
Dashboard is just an example. The gist is how much of know-how that we use in our work can be replaced by AI transforming other people's existing work. I think it hinges on how many new problems or new business demands will show up. If we just work on small variations of existing business, then quickly our know-hows will converge (e.g. building a dashboard or a vanilla version of linear regression model), and AI will spew out such code for many of us.
I don't think anyone's job is copying "know-how". Knowing how goes a lot deeper than writing the code.
Especially in web, boilerplate/starters/generators that do exactly what you want with little to no code or familiarity has been the norm for at least a decade. This is the lifeblood of repos like npm.
What we have is better search for all this code and documentation that was already freely available and ready to go.
This wave of AI innovation reveals that a lot of activity in coding turns out to be of accidental complexity instead of essential. Or put it another way, a lot of tasks in coding is conceptual to human, but procedural to AI. Conceptual tasks require intuitive understanding, rigorous reasoning, and long-term planning. AI is not there yet. On the other hand, procedural tasks are low entropy with high priors: once a prompt is given, what follows is almost certain. For instance, one had to learn many concepts to write "public static void main(String[] args)" when writing Java code in the old days. But for AI, the conditional probability Pr(write "public static void main(String[] args)" | prompt = "write the entry method for a given class") is practically 1. Or if I'd like to use Python to implement linear regression, there will be pretty much one way to implement it right, and AI knows about it - nothing magical, but only because we human have been doing so for years and the optimal solution for most of the cases have converged, so it turns into procedural to AI.
Fortunate or unfortunate, many procedural tasks are extremely hard for humans to master, but easy to AI to generate. In the meantime, we structured our society to support such procedural work. As the wave of innovation spreads, many people will rise but many will also suffer.
You understate the capabilities of the latest gen LLMs. I can typically describe a user's bug in a few sentences or tell Claude to check fetch the 500 error in Cloud run logs and it will explain the root cause, propose a fix, and throw in new unit test in a two minutes.
Jevon's Paradox does not last forever in a single sector, right? Take manufacturing business for example. We can make more and more stuff with increasingly lower price, yet we ended up outsourcing our manufacturing and the entire sector withered. Manufacturing also gets less lucrative over the years, which means there has been less and less demand of labor.
You're right. I updated it to "in a single sector". The context is about the future demand of software engineers, hence I was wondering if it would be possible that we wouldn't have enough demand for such profession, despite that the entire society will benefit for the dropping unit cost and probably invented a lot of different demand in other fields.
I'm quite convinced that software (and, more broadly, implementing the systems and abstractions) seems to have virtually unlimited demand. AI raises the ceiling and broadens software's reach even further as problems that previously required some level of ingenuity or intelligence can be automated now.
> The total surface area of "stuff that needs building" keeps expanding.
I certainly hope so, but it depends on whether we will have more demand for such problems. AI can code out a complex project by itself because we humans do not care about many details. When we marvel that AI generates a working dashboard for us, we are really accepting that someone else has created a dashboard that meets our expectation. The layout, the color, the aesthetics, the way it interacts, the time series algorithms, and etc. We don't care, as it does better than we imagined. This, of course, is inevitable, as many of us do spend enormous time implementing what other people have done. Fortunately or unfortunately, it is very hard to human to repeat other people's work correctly, but it's a breeze for AI. The corollary is that AI will replace a lot of demand on software developers, if we don't have big enough problems to solve -- in the past 20 years we have internet, cloud, mobile, and machine learning. All big trends that require millions and millions of brilliant minds. Are we going to have the same luck in the coming years, I'm not so sure.
That sounds an organizational issue. I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible. That is, a combination of the job of a general and a PM. Controlling the information may be necessary for survival, but it should not be the job description.
reply