Markets are just a tool. This tool functions on information. OP explained how information (in this case, the rumor of a competitor laying fiber) caused action within the market.
I don't think it's actually a useful perspective at all. The poem is racial resentment repackaged as a means to guilt trip people into feeling bad about adventure, science, and exploration. Unless they were pretty well read at a young age, most millennials probably first experienced this poem in the film First Man, where it is read as a backdrop to Apollo 11 traveling to the moon. It's a great scene because the juxtaposition is stark. We can either hold ourselves back an an endless and futile journey on solving the human condition of poverty and inequality, or we can explore the stars. It's an easy choice.
Is it meant to guilt trip people? Or is it an honest expression of the frustration (and yes, racial resentment) that the author feels?
This is why I consider it a useful perspective to hear. I read this as a human being simply saying “this is how I feel in these circumstances”.
It’s uncomfortable, and I don’t believe that space exploration should be gated on solving poverty and inequality, but it is important to understand that an intelligent, thoughtful human being arrived at this place.
In a sense I feel that this is actually an appeal to the same sense of curiosity that drives space exploration. Why do we explore space? To learn and understand. Why should we consider human perspectives we don’t agree with? To learn and understand.
You could plausibly argue that the poem, when it was written, was meant as an honest expression of frustration, but the context in which it was deployed makes whatever original intent of the author irrelevant. The whole point of the poem's deployment once it was published was to say "white people are wasting money on a moon rocket, they should be spending money on inner city black poverty". Otherwise I think you're reading a bit too much into it. There's nothing more to learn or understand from this poem. "Don't spend money on rockets and going to space, spend it on entitlements and 'fighting' poverty". We get it.
> We can either hold ourselves back an an endless and futile journey on solving the human condition of poverty and inequality, or we can explore the stars. It's an easy choice.
Wait... Are you suggesting that "exploring the stars" is less of an endless and futile journey than dealing with poverty and inequality?
Solving poverty and inequality is for the short term - they'll come back and need solving again no matter how many times you already solved them. But once the stars are explored, they stay explored forever. So yea, that's moving forwards and the other isn't.
The closest stars are way too far to reach on any reasonable timescale. That's not even mentioning the fact that moving forwards is a vague goal. Moving forwards towards what exactly? And if the US government got off of it's ass to... Oh I don't know, maybe fix the bullshit healthcare system we have and help people with tax money instead of bombing people for Israel things would improve quite a bit in a very short time. That's assuming we don't bomb each other over terroritorial squabbles first. In any case I don't really understand your defeatism when it comes to inequality but when it's something as difficult as interstellar space travel you seem to be optimistic.
I am saying that there we never be a world in which poverty and inequality do not exist, unless we are all dead. Maybe it's because I'm an American, but this perspective that grand adventure and exploration is pointless or not worth it is totally foreign to me.
> We can either hold ourselves back an an endless and futile journey on solving the human condition of poverty and inequality, or we can explore the stars. It's an easy choice.
"Sorry, poor people; but I want to live on Jupiter so you're just gonna have to starve to death".
Yea what other technological progress was only wanted by losers? Most of it, by your standard. Yet it's also technological progress that has reduced poverty. You don't care about the people of the future and want to keep them in poverty for the sake of the people of today. I wouldn't call you a loser for that but you do have bad morals.
If it makes you feel better, the amount of money the United States spends on space is a very small percentage compared overall entitlement spending. There is always going to be some level of inequality, so your maxim that we should only spend money on space exploration when those problems are solved just isn't workable. The enormous amount of money the United States spends on "solving" inequality and poverty begs the question of if that's even an effective or efficient allocation of resources in the first place.
1. Why would eradicating poverty not be something to strive for?
2. The money you mentioned as basis of the comment I replied to. But if you have a cognitive disability which precludes the ability to follow a conversation's thread, I can summarize the previous state at the start of each response.
Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon I see, on X and elsewhere, is that there are many people who are actively rooting for Americans to die. It has been very revealing in a "see who your real friends are" kind of way. It's quite different from the GWOT, where a sort of cold indifference was common. This time there's europeans and even some Americans who are anxious to see Americans shot down and killed. This is probably the logical end state of believing that the other team is "literally hitler" for so long, amplified by the newsfeed algorithm.
The current US government (and the millions who voted them in power despite their clear fascistic tendencies) made perfectly clear to the rest of the world that the USA is friends with nobody: we are all supposed to be either enemies or vassals.
You can't have Vance come to Europe and insult all of them and expect us to be friends with you.
I totally get it. Via revealed preference, Europe decided a long time ago that they wanted to outsource continental security to the Americans. For a while, this worked out okay, but after 9/11 and the, shall we say, tepid enthusiasm that the rest of NATO (absent maybe Great Britain) had with supporting the US, the relationship deteriorated to a pretty basic free rider problem. Fast forward to the Ukraine War and it became starkly clear that Europe was not prepared to handle security without relying on the "friends" across the Atlantic. So I guess I'm sorry that it took Vance (and Rubio) coming to Europe to insult your leaders, but if that's what it takes for European nations to take their own security seriously again then so be it, I guess? I acknowledge the relationship strain, but everyone in Europe taking taking charge of their own security is objectively better for all involved, perhaps especially the Americans. Again, I'm sorry that Vance said mean things about your politicians.
Vance said mean things about our soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq, connard.
I am more than forty y.o. and I know the story, I've been there. The story isn't that Europe are freeriders, but that the USA kneecapped any attempt at European strength, for example by using their special relationship with the UK to veto every European defense agreement outside of NATO, because they wanted the EU to always be dependent on the USA.
The current push is also a pure extorsion racket, as provent by the violent threats the US is making against the EU for the crime of rebuilding their continental security with European weapons:
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2026/02/pentagon-...
proving once and for all the the US isn't really pushing for "Europe taking taking charge of their own security" and that you are a liar and a gaslighter.
>after 9/11 and the, shall we say, tepid enthusiasm that the rest of NATO (absent maybe Great Britain) had with supporting the US
See? What can I answer except "Fuck you, fucking asshole".
Sorry to have not sent even more of our soldiers to die into a war that... you now think were very bad mistake, perpetual wars that shouldn't have happened... We tried to tell you and got "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" as an answer. And then you still sent soldiers, and now you say they never mattered.
Why are you surprised we don't want to follow your lead at all now? We should help you in the war with Iran that you won, you need our boats but you don't need them - which is it?
Best I could find on what you're referring to for the Vance insult is this[1]:
>UK opposition politicians accused JD Vance of disrespecting British forces after he said a US stake in Ukraine's economy was a "better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years".
This is just objectively true, sorry.
I was in the GWOT and am familiar with how our NATO "partners" intentionally kneecapped themselves at the expense of supporting the mission and the safety of their own soldiers. This country can't fight at night, this country can go outside the wire, this country can't do convoy ops beyond such and such distance, this country can't.... Can't was the operative word. Sure, point taken that the war was prosecuted over 20 years in a very, very stupid way. That doesn't change the fact that what Vance is saying is true.
That article is pay-walled, but the point of the response from the Americans is that if European Defense vendors wish to maintain access to the (much more lucrative) US market, then US vendors should be able to retain the same access to Europe. How is this not simply fair play amongst "alliance" members? NATO should not be selling NATO technology outside of NATO, so to the extent that the US vetoed (via the UK) foreign military sales to non-NATO members ... yes I support this 100%. This is how a defensive alliance works.
>Why are you surprised we don't want to follow your lead at all now?
I am quite literally asking you to do the opposite for European security. I am tired of my country being the guarantor for security and sovereignty of places that maybe 1 or 2 people at the New York Times could find on a map without googling it, but who then turn around and pretend that the existence of democracy itself is a function of the 82nd being able to seize airfields in that country to stop the Russians. I am tired of Europeans telling me that my country sucks and how GWOT vets are war criminals, on and on, when you guys can't do a proper casevac or figure out CAS without calling daddy. Figure that shit out yourselves, thanks. Happy to help teach, though.
>We should help you in the war with Iran that you won, you need our boats but you don't need them - which is it?
We do not need anything from you. Everyone, with some notable exceptions, in this "alliance" threw a hissy fit about overflights originating from bases across Europe that my country built to keep your country safe from the Soviets. Perhaps we should simply close these bases, and let you all figure out how to deal with IRBMs and the host of other 21st century war tech on your own. To the extent that this WH or anyone in my government is asking for "help", it's probably meant as a troll, given that outside of France there's very little force projection on blue water coming out of the rest of NATO. That was a choice, that those countries made. No one in the American government told, for example, the UK to essentially mothball their Navy. No one in the American government told the Germans to shutdown their reactors like a bunch of fools, making them dependent on Russian gas. You people voted for this, knowing that the Americans are always the backstop if shit hits the fan.
Ironically, the last time I had an argument with a Euro about American military involvement and defense policy I was in London in 2023, and to my surprise the only person coming to my side of the debate was the lone Frenchman. Pity.
> It has been very revealing in a "see who your real friends are" kind of way.
Nah, not really.
If I had 'friends' who went about kidnapping and assassinating leaders, mass murdering little girls, bombing literally hundreds of schools in a month, blowing up civilian bridges and power plants, etc etc etc... I wouldn't need to invoke "the newsfeed algorithm" to explain why people are genuinely happy to see the people committing those atrocities get a tiny taste of what they've been inflicting.
Friends don't let friends commit war crimes. And indeed, from that perspective, America might never have had any real friends. We've just been the biggest bully with the biggest stick, the kid whose parents owned the biggest local news channel and industry.
And frankly, friendship with America doesn't even come with the same perks as it used to. You want Europe to buy all their oil and weapons from the US at inflated prices? You want to stir shit up all over the world and then use the ensuing refugee crisis to bolster far right parties across Europe? You want to have a go at Greenland??
... And then complain that we don't have any "real friends" except Israel any more?! Well shit dude, I wonder why. Spoiler alert: It's not because Hitler comparisons are being amplified by the evil anti-genocide media.
As an American rooting for Iran, I can offer my perspective. My country is occupied by Israel and used to commit the most heinous crimes against humanity that anyone could imagine. I am sick of it. Iran are fighting the very people occupying my government and the occupied government itself. They are on my side, hell they even offered to bomb Palantir! I'm rooting for the end of Zionism and Iran is really my only hope to make that happen.
This situation has been apparent for a long time, so I do not feel sorry for the people who signed up to fight in Israel's proxy military -- a military that was already guilty of mass war crimes prior to being occupied I might add.
It's crazy to watch this site go from 'we can't talk about the Russian/Ukraine conflict' to 'this is why I want American servicemen to die' being a community supported topic. There was literally more push back against being OK with Russian military losses in Ukraine than there is with supporting American deaths. To the point all discussion on that topic was stamped out by moderation here, but this cheering against America (and now pro-American deaths I guess) mixed with offhand usage of phrases like hasbara and other ZOG type dog whistles mixed in is one to two of the most active topics every day. And the majority of pushback just ends up flagged dead so it's not like people are looking for a discussion, just a pushing of propaganda/narrative/antisemitic dog whistles like low effort/low value posts with nothing more than calling someone hasbara (separating out 'evil' propaganda with a non-english term used to identify the jewishness and therefore enhanced evilness of the poster).
Personally the pervious moderation to the change in moderation stance for this topic makes it obvious that HN/YCombinators official position aligns with this and I think their official current position will start to have larger impacts for YCombinator. YCombinator, your position is now aligned with posts on your site justifying the deaths of American service members. Not really a good look.
Iran is occupied by a Shia apartheid government. They mandate Shia religious rules that they enforce with extreme violence and death, often against little girls for not wearing hats correctly. They staff the government and the majority of Iranian industry with Shia apartheid supporters. They recently murdered 3,000 (Apartheid regime number) to 30,000 protesters (broader Iranian civilian claim) in the span of 2 day. Iran is currently importing thugs from the Iraqi Shia PMF to be enforcers of the apartheid (showing this is a Shia occupation government forcing itself on the populace) on the streets of Iran along with inviting occupying enforcers from other surrounding Shia militant organizations. People who claim to be against religious apartheid oppressive states immediately turning positions to support such regimes show that they don't really hold that position for any reason but political expedience.
Okay. My response to this is that this does not reflect reality. There is ample evidence that, of the countries out there, Israel exercises outsized influence and is in many ways a very toxic partner. But occupying? We should be reasonable and precise in how these things are discussed. The IRGC is not on "your side". They would kill you without thinking twice about it, unless you are muslim, and even then they're probably just ask permission. Words on the internet are one thing, but be mindful that active support for Iran is treason.
IRGC is literally on my side, they are literally fighting my enemies. No money to Israel, no anti-BDS laws, no weapons to Israel, no political coverage for Israel, no media propaganda on behalf of Israel. If the IRGC wins decisively, these things will all become a reality.
I have many Muslim friends, they are some of the best people I've ever met in my life. I'm an atheist. Not one has ever had a problem with that.
You expressly stating IRGC is your side, not the Iranian people, is very telling.
IRGC caused more suffering/death, more starving of children, in the Yemeni civil war than Israel has in Gaza. If you care about military caused suffering/death, IRGC has to be on the top of your horrible people list.
IRGC is currently importing Iraqi Shia PMF to be enforcers of the Shia apartheid regime currently occupying Iran, because as a religious occupying apartheid regime they don't have enough organic internal support to draw from Iranians in Iran. If you are against occupation, you are against the unrepresentative Shia Theocratic regime (with many regime members born in Iraq) occupying Iran. Daring to dress like this (as a woman, men can dress as they want) will get you murdered by the Shia occupiers:
IRGC is currently recruiting 11-12 year old to man Shia apartheid enforcement checkpoints across Iran and to act as regime enforcers for future events like when the regime murdered 3000 (regime statistic) to 30,000 (civilian statistic) in two days because those people were tired of being ruled by Shia apartheid occupiers forcing Shia conformity (girls must wear hats or be punished, sometime via rape/murder). Again because as an theocratic apartheid occupying (not popular supported) regime they don't have enough manpower without resorting to children/foreign militia.
That is literally your side? Religious theocracies occupying nations without majority organic consent/support of the people? Segregation/lesser/modesty law treatment for women? Imported foreign militias on the streets to enforce unpopular theocratic oppression? Child soldiers? WTF is wrong with you if that is 'your side'.
First of all, I fully reject Zionist propaganda. It's crystal clear that their mandate is to lie to Americans at all times. Secondly, yes the IRGC is on my side, they are attacking my enemies. The only state in the world to do so.
OK, but what about the points a rando on HN brought up?
The Iraqi PMF posted videos of their arrival and their meeting and stating their commitment to the IRGC, so not propaganda.
The IRGC has gone on state TV talking about recruiting 12 year olds, so not propaganda.
HRW has documented the murder of women from violating dress code, so not proganda.
The IRGC has stated that 3000 Iranian protesters will murdered by them in January, so not propoganda (though their admitted number is in question as being too low).
The Iranian regime/IRGC are very clear they are a repressive theocratic regime for Shia Islam, so not propaganda. The have religious/morality police that enforce Shia rules/requirements, with violations resulting in punishment up to rape/death.
The government/IRGC are made up of Shia regime loyalists. IRGC and the state own large amounts of industry in Iran, and promote loyalist Shia supporters making Iran an apartheid regime favoring Shia and disfavoring those that follow other religions (religion is often tribally based in Iran), so not propaganda.
Iran supported the Houthis in their civil war that resulted in over 200,000 dead children, so Iran is actively spreading war/death unrelated to fighting Israel (Israel was not in control of Yemen's previous government).
Yeah and Saddam Hussein had WMD and unplugged incubators (something Israel actually did), and there were 40 beheaded babies and mass rapes, and Iran murdered 6 million protesters... You'd have to be a complete fool to believe Zionist lies.
I'm completely uninterested in indulging Zionist propaganda. Never again will I take information from any Zionist source. I think I've cited very valid reasons as to why that is.
OK, but what about me a random American poster on HN on my personal points?
You haven't actually posted anything of substance why you won't engage just vague 'I'm not willing to engage discussion even though I want to post on this subject on HN over and over'.
Those are Zionist talking points, not your "personal points". There are lots of Zionists on this site. I probably shouldn't have engaged in this bad faith argument and will rectify that mistake now.
Those are my personal thoughts on the matter, not zionist talking points. I asked you questions you can't answer and now you have to use dishonest tactics and namecalling because you can't respond to them.
FYI more invaders, this time Pakistani militia are now being recruited into Iran to oppress/occupy the Iranian population in service of the occupation theocratic government:
"The roaming of the Islamic Republic's proxies in Iran; entry of "Zainabiyoun" of Pakistan after "Hashd al-Shaabi" of Iraq and "Fatemiyoun" of Afghanistan
Reports of the presence of forces affiliated with the Zainabiyoun Division of Pakistan have been published in various areas of Sistan and Baluchestan province."
Israel is an apartheid regime. Palestinian Israelis are constantly discriminated against and have laws apply differently to them. You could also argue that there’s a significant theocratic element in the Israeli government (resulting from the alliances the corrupt war criminal has had to make to retain power and avoid prosecution). Eretz Yisrael anyone?
I think what a lot of Americans fail to understand is just how galling the rest of the world finds your government’s rank hypocrisy. Your current president and his enablers are mostly considered to be literal madmen. Judging by words, deeds and outcomes it’s hard to defend an opposing view.
'but Israel' isn't a response on the points I raised other than to say you don't actually care about apartheid regimes/points, they are just convenient talking points for you to justify your position.
No offence, but you were banging on about the “Shia apartheid regime” and implied (EDIT: spelling) they are a minority when 95% of Iranians are Shia. There is more apartheid in Israel than Iran.
As for theocratic governments, the region is full of them and the biggest (Saudi Arabia) are supported by the US despite their similar practices of theocratic oppression to the Iranian regime (probably more so in SA than Iran), so please spare me the hypocritical handwringing.
You are wrong 95% of Iranians are not IRCG level Shia, and do not want to be forced to live under Shia rules. Iran assigns someone Shia depending on birth, not depending on the persons actual belief. Like medieval Europe used to do hundreds of years ago. State mandated registering of people at birth does not equal reality. So you believe that assigned/forced religion at birth is just? Is actually representative of people's beliefs?
You are you saying you are OK with Saudi Arabia's behavior then? That is the hypocritical handwringing is am pointing out. The hypocritical people who talked out against Saudi Arabia, against religious favoritism/laws in Israel, people who in the past criticized religion like Rushdie dared to but Iran attempted to murder him for. But things those people now overlook and call Iran their 'ally' in alignment with them.
Is Saudi Arabia good? If not, then how is Iran being the same good? That you can't see I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Iran supporters with my points is wild. They are all things they claim to care about, and would not be accepting of from other nations, but because they like that Iran has attacked the USA/Israel since 1979 they hand waive away as fine. My entire life I was raised with Iranians chanting for death to me as an American (resultantly fundamentally shaping my opinion of Islam), and that policy is what Iranian supporters say supersedes all bad acts Iran commits (excusing Irans regime raping/murdering young girls for not wearing hats, executing by regime numbers 3,000 people on the street over two days, repressive religious theocracy, murder contracts on people like Rushdie who speak negatively about religion).
"Decisively" means something specific in warfare, but you are describing a basket of political objectives that are in many, many ways totally unrelated to what happens on a particular battlefield. This is probably a result of your nascent Palestinianism, which is definitely clouding your ability to coherently observe these global phenomena and adjust your priors accordingly. If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like zionist conspiracies to you.
Are you implying that it's the jews that are forcing my government to commit war crimes on behalf of Israel? That sounds like an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
If you’re a foreigner, pay attention to this commenter. He is fairly typical of who your fellow union member will be if you decide to join a union. If you are on a H-1B note that you will have to leave.
Understand carefully the consequences of joining a union. Once empowered this is what will happen to you. Keep your eyes wide open. Remember what the Ayatollah did to his young anti-shah allies.
The jobs filled via H-1B are not “specialty” positions, everyone knows this. I know that’s what the visa is ostensibly supposed to be used for, but it’s a very silly thing to pretend at this stage. I agree that many are uninformed on this, and my friends who don’t work in tech think someone on an H-1B visa is like a “particle physics PhD” or something, and not “database administrator” or “backend engineer”.
Well, it doesn't matter what your friends think about what a "speciality occupation" is. What matters is what USCIS and DOL consider a speciality occupation - the "speciality" is that it requires specialized knowledge and training which jobs in software development and even database administration would most certainly qualify for. From https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-spec...:
> The occupation requires:
> Theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and
> Attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a directly related* specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.
Bizarre and entitled comment. It is not a human right to immigrate to the United States. The government here is supposed to set policies that are for the betterment of people who are from here. It’s not anti meritocracy to observe that it’s insane and stupid to pretend that every college grad in the United States needs to compete, in their own home country, with a billion people from India and China for work. The only “illiberal” thing I notice when this topic comes up here is that people seem to think the laws of supply and demand don’t apply when we talk about immigration, and thus there’s no effect on wages (wrong). Something must’ve changed, though, since that sentiment is mostly absent in this thread.
The presupposition behind that question is that immigration is a necessary evil to be limited as much as possible. I am not American, but that strikes me as an ironic position for Americans to take.
This is a policy decision insofar as the policy isn’t to liquidate entire groups of people over class and status resentment. “Just redistribute the wealth bro, it’ll work this time bro I swear let’s just do a redistribution”.
NASA may be cool, but the main reason SpaceX was able to undercut old launch providers was all the I Can't Believe It's Not Corruption of pork barrel spending by those old launch providers.
So SpaceX made space cheaper, was good value for the US taxpayer, and was also a money transfer scheme from the government to him. (Worse with Tesla, but this isn't about Musk just SpaceX).
That said, now there's questions about if Musk is corrupt with all those US government ties that result in suspicious direct pressure on non-US governments, including with Starlink which even if theoretically separate to SpaceX is obviously functionally inseparable at present.
> NASA may be cool, but the main reason SpaceX was able to undercut old launch providers was all the I Can't Believe It's Not Corruption of pork barrel spending by those old launch providers.
FWIW, SpaceX did literally what NASA paid them to. It might be no one dared to hope that the Commercial Space budget will turn out so spectacularly effective at disrupting legacy structures of corruption, but the point of the exercise was still to pay private players like SpaceX to make access to space cheaper, and they absolutely delivered on that. This wasn't a competition between public and private interests, it was a successful cooperation.
> So SpaceX made space cheaper, was good value for the US taxpayer, and was also a money transfer scheme from the government to him.
Obviously paying someone to do something is a money transfer, and if the payer is the government and recipient a private organization, it is a transfer of money from government to private interests. Same happens every time a federal employee buys a coffee on their way to work.
I think that helping the less fortunate is cool, and launching people to the Moon is lighting money on fire for utopian and inevitably corrupt money transfer schemes.
Hmm. Seems the tool is working as expected.
reply