Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by meltyness 184 days ago
The first half is usually solid, the back half is, well, usually more opinionated/softer. Lots of interviews with professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts or members of the public have their plight elevated as serious national policy concerns.
2 comments

Sure there’s definitely a change in content but I don’t think it’s quite that bad. Tonight was capehart and brooks— who has never supported Trump even though he’s a conservative, so not a great foil for capehart… Pretty soft/polite analysis that always feels very late-aughts. Yesterday was someone who worked in the state department for 25 years giving a pretty dry breakdown on Venezuela. the night before that was a professor from Tulane criticizing trump’s strategy on Venezuela. The night before that was an interview with Bill Cassidy explaining the GOP health care proposal he co-authored, and a report from someone embedded with the Lebanese army. I wouldn’t exactly say it’s like a rehash of the conversation at the campus coffee shop over there.
>professors who seek to have their opinions represented as facts

How do they do that and how do you know it's their intent?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqr95elV5io&t=2108s

Probably best to dissect a specimen. I guess really the guy's just hocking his book here, but it's vacuous and packed with opinions and pessimism, and really not particularly high quality journalism.

For example, I disagree with the opinion that LLMs can't be a free lunch, or at least can't be CAPEX instead of OPEX, which Reich doesn't realize in the stated opinion.

I had to go back pretty far to find a professor, specifically, the first few were social outreach or labor organizers.

Your claim was professors want their opinions to be considered fact.

Promoting a book doesn't do that. Having opinions is normal and what we are talking about. Whether the person is pessimistic has no relevance here and I would like to know why you presented that as evidence.

It's a national federally funded organization and they want to chat on about justice and fairness, literally asking in order "how does this effect diversity? oh. How about equity? oh. how about inclusion?", and it's such a surprise that it costs a trillion dollars to not plop a choo-choo from LA to SF when everyone "feels like it"? It's gross, it's gross to me. Stick to the news.
I assume by your rant you don't have the evidence I requested and your claims a more likely based on your political views and not reality.

What's disturbing is that you're probably an engineer, like you know how to open PRs but also think the 2020 election was stolen. Maybe that explains why software has bugs

Yeah, we're opining on a segment that I opined is excessively opinionated (i.e., opinions are confidently stated so as to be represented as facts, "half of teachers are using LLMs") but when you look, the "study" is just a bunch of opinion polls. So yeah it is, in the literal sense, the professor's opinion being represented as facts, thank you have a nice day.
What you are describing here is very clearly a you problem and you’ve somehow convinced yourself that it’s someone else’s problem.
You are optimistic about my ability to get things done, and I appreciate that.
This user must be a bot check the comment he replied to be me higher in the thread. It almost looks like a valid response but actually jumps around to different issues right wing people have about the news.

The last section is the most telling.