You got a good point. SV types like HM tend to be textbook examples of Dunning-Kruger in action.
1. Read Wikipedia on another field
2. Decide, based on that knowledge, that the field is “ripe for disruption”
3. Usually fail miserably if parasitic ad tech isn’t the core business model
Even politicians show more humility than these people. It’s as if typing into a computer makes them think they are omniscient high priests. Most of them even have the gall to call themselves engineers. We don’t call machinists engineers, and most programmers are digital machinists.
I concur. It seems obvious to me that at the very least, pouring copious amounts of hot smoke into your mouth/lungs on a regular basis is not good for your long term health. It's humorous to me that so many of the 'pro-science' crowd become strong skeptics when it seems the facts might reflect poorly on thing they care about.
It gets pretty confusing when cannabis itself is thought to have anti-cancer properties and the actual amount and temperature of the smoke is much less than that of tobacco. Yeah breathing in any smoke is not good for you, but is it like smoking a pack of cigarettes? Or is it like enjoying a campfire and breathing in a small bit of smoke? One is profoundly bad for you, the other is of such little concern that nobody should be worrying about it unless they have serious lung conditions.
Good news for google shareholders: looks like google is returning back to its roots creating nightmarish ad tech tools to further their goal of turning the world into a digital panopticon. Bonus points for simultaneously crowding out competitors and further solidifying their ubiquity and monopoly.
I understand your position; however, I think it comes from a position of privilege that both of us share. Do you would consider yourself a worldly person who can put themselves into other people's shoes? If you can, then consider this: the people are who left behind in culture, economy, and the political system do not want to be transient workers who move from one city to the next. That is a projecting cosmopolitan values and perspectives unto people who have decades and sometimes maybe centuries of history in their area. How would you feel to leave behind everyone you know and everything you are familiar with?
If you want to understand the rise of racism, look into the split labor market theory[1].
If you still believe that 70 million people (in the USA) are upset because they are lazy, stupid, trash and that these populists, like wizards, conjured up their latent virulent racism for their own power with no other possible explanation read: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/are-co...
The ticket into the elite professional class who controls the economy, government, and culture is a basic four year degree. It is becoming virtually impossible for working people to obtain that ticket. The working class only has numbers as its power.
The erosion of unions, mass-membership civic organizations, and the elitism of modern political parties has eliminated the voice of working people in the west. Political democracy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a democratic society. The economy is increasingly controlled by oligarchs, for instance.
I'd rather leave my personal history out of it if that's ok, though I can share it it would convince anyone so best stick to wider measures. Fair?
Also, again, we agree a lot and I think that's worth remembering. I too decry loss of unions and civic orgs. I think we need a system that gives more opportunities and where the opportunities are of better quality.
But there are still 2 issues I feel we disagree on:
First, the 70m lazy people. To be clear, I didn't say they were all lazy, I said some were and some were short termist. I'd add that others were risk averse or unambitious. Why is this number not credible to you? There are 330m people in the US, so 21% of people being either lazy or short termist or risk averse etc actually sounds LOW to me. Maybe I am spending time with the wrong people?
Second, who are these elite? I keep hearing about them. But no one seems to know for sure what makes one elite? Right now it seems that we have 70m non elites complaining about 280m elites. How can the elite also be the majority? You can't be above average and in the majority, being elite and the (overwhelming) majority sounds far from possible.
Again, I don't disagree our society needs to improve. I support everything from a UBI to criminal justice reform to education. Now is a perfect time to go after China and that should even bring back jobs to some extent.
I just don't buy this ill defined "elite" concept as the root cause.
The root cause is 20-40 years of social progress and a minority of people choosing (however understandably) not to engage with the new (better) system. Sorry to be blunt about it.
1. Read Wikipedia on another field 2. Decide, based on that knowledge, that the field is “ripe for disruption” 3. Usually fail miserably if parasitic ad tech isn’t the core business model
Even politicians show more humility than these people. It’s as if typing into a computer makes them think they are omniscient high priests. Most of them even have the gall to call themselves engineers. We don’t call machinists engineers, and most programmers are digital machinists.