> Originally coined in the 17th century by René Descartes[4] as a derogatory term and regarded as fictitious or useless, the concept gained wide acceptance following the work of Leonhard Euler in the 18th century, and Augustin-Louis Cauchy and Carl Friedrich Gauss in the early 19th century.

I think the jury is still out wrt utility of AdS spaces. They could be useless toys, or they could be in the Descartes phase rn.

I partially agree. Counter evidence is that Little Italy, Chinatowns and the like exist and have done for many decades. Ethnic clubs like Sons of Italy persist. Some Pennsylvania Dutch still don't speak English, and still set themselves apart. But at the same time, many from those groups join the majority culture and leave their old languages behind.

In this respect I don't see modern immigration in America any differently. Newer immigrant groups have their culture enclaves, but many from those groups also enter and adopt the majority culture.

> I don't think you thought it through before you wrote this

You're misreading my comment. For most of us, the locals at time of ancestor arrival had already displaced the natives to whom you refer

I'll bite.

In the US, for one, every single person has an ancestor that thanked their lucky stars the locals didn't think the way that you are recommending we think today. Or an ancestor that suffered because the locals did think that way.

We honor that heritage by paying it forward, lest we be lumped among the trash of history that punished the Irish, the Chinese, and the Jews for the cardinal sin of living down the street.

Lot of Americans in this forum, so that's why.

So you are happy with this outcome, but also so upset at the people that evangelized your preferred policy position that you think HN readers should cut them from the information diet?

Seems most likely that the public outcry actually influenced this outcome, so I don't see why the nuances of alarmism about it (imminent decision vs fait accomplit) should nix an entire information source.

When managing teams these days, the only part I keep is the “so that Z” — what beneficial change in the world does this ticket make?

If the ticket name is just “fix this bug” then I’m not certain the engineer knows why it’s important, and knowing the importance of your work is itself important.

30 years of jurisprudence since Thornburg v. Gingles disagrees with this framing. That unanimous decision found racial districts a necessarily race-conscious remedy to race-targeted harm: republican gerrymandering of cohesive black communities in the south. Which was the same harm at play in 2026 Louisiana.

If you think a race-conscious remedy is more racist than race-targeted harm, you must also believe that minority communities have no right for representation. If that’s the case, be plain about your beliefs. Either way please stop publicly mistaking cause for effect regarding this topic of “racially segregated voting districts”

How is enforcing the two greatest anti Jim Crow laws (VRA and CRA), somehow, equivalent to returning to Jim Crow itself?

> the administrative state

I’m trying to understand better, but it just seems like you are very opposed to merit based hiring in government and I don’t understand why. I understand your appeal to history, but what could be a better approach than hiring on merit while also making those employees accountable to political appointees? Just replacing the entire ranks of government every 4 years?

I’ve seen this a few times in the thread. Can you or anyone provide a link that supports this claim?

It’s not like anyone owes Sam Altman their business just bc their product has become slightly, perhaps temporarily, better

Now understanding the good faith argument better, doesn’t it even further support the ascendancy of China? The argument is: despite rampant spoils system corruption, the US eclipsed Great Britain on the strength of a large population with low trade barriers alone (both internal and external)

But China is now the country with the largest population and low trade barriers. So aren’t they playing the role of 1800s USA and we the role of Great Britain here in 2026?

Aside, I appreciate the content of your post, but it really does distract your point to sling insults like hysterical towards other commenters

> contrasts with a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted based on a measure of merit, independent of political activity.

What is commendable about this? Why should anyone who isn’t close enough with political winners to get the spoils want this?

Nobody likes this state of affairs so we are asking you to stop strawmanning and start steelmanning the posts you are responding to.

You are clearly not dumb, so stop responding to the dumbest possible and easiest to dismiss interpretation of other people’s comments and instead go deeper