It is indeed fragile since, as you point out, it only takes one party (or in Rs case, one person) to eliminate the consensus. Consensus comes and goes.

And yet, it's notable when through the chaos, both parties have consistently maintained lockstep agreement for 30 years.

Is this a legitimate policy decision? Maybe - but it sure reads like the ranting of a drunk.

E.g., the ICC ditched Microsoft last year, likely foreseeing this type of action.

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1ommt2f/the_int...

The proximal cause of the sanctions appears to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was won by a former ICC judge, and Trump covets it.

The distal cause is that the US never joined the ICC, arguing that US political & military leaders should not be subject to a binding foreign jurisdiction. This is a longstanding disagreement, with bipartisan consensus in DC.

Putting pressure on this disagreement, the ICC has a warrants out for Netanyahu and others that the current administration views as a political & military ally.

My interpretation is basically: this is a petty move about the Nobel, which builds on a long-simmering disagreement about the role of international law.

https://apnews.com/article/us-icc-trump-rubio-4ea3555403e3c6... https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...

It's hard to get data, but this is precisely what appears to me to be happening.

There's a limited number of slots by country. These companies specifically target those slots. I've worked with these folks (who are wonderful people, to be clear), and also had multiple friends with very niche, in-demand skills need to leave the country.

I don't have the data, but at a micro level, the system does appear to simply be set up backwards.

NAL but that's like a question you'd get on an HR training test. Yes, that's illegal, regardless of motive.

There's a whole business model of US-citizen managers, H1B front-line employees, and offshore support staff. They flood the H1B lottery, crowding out (imo) more deserving high-skill folks. Was really insane to see.

IMO, going after sketchy practices like this is a MUCH better approach than reducing the volume of H1B employees.

If so, would you accept the following as moral actions?

Financial adviser charging substantially above-market fees to recent widows, who lack experience in finance (All information is available, but not understood)

Selling heroin outside of a drug rehab clinic (All information available & understood, but under compromising circumstances)

So like the general argument is "company X was causing material harm, knew they were causing harm, and actively decided to continue causing harm while covering it up."

It'd be similar to suing someone who sold a dangerous toy under the label "safe for all ages". The lawyers don't need to ban specific features (sharp edges, fast motors, etc.). They just have to argue the way it's put together harms kids, the company knew about it, and they kept lying about it anyway.

The remediations could therefore be case-specific. They don't need to ban infinite scroll in general, just ban Meta from applying it to their products, since it's known to be harmful in that context.

100% yes. Remember, this is somewhat adversarial: Meta increases its products addictiveness year by year. Banning individual practices fails if the rate of that growth exceeds the impact of point solutions.

The TLDR is that arbitrary tests are permissible if there's no disparate impact. Tests with disparate impact are permissible iff they are not arbitrary (i.e., "directly" assess job responsibilities).

So, for example, Leetcode may have disparate impact, but it's "direct" enough to be permissible. On the other hand, most "AI Assessments" are actually so badly implemented that they're effectively random - and a coin flip won't have disparate impact.

The industry is so naturally prone to oversupply that the only stable equilibrium is undersupply. Aggressive expansion kicks off a price war, which immediately undercuts the logic of the expansion.

This only changes with new entrants, which will come, especially from China. But it takes time to build fab capacity, so the medium-term modal outcome is consistent undersupply.

The credential was certainly something - a more easily understood distillation of the of connections and status that got you there. But that's not exactly professional the way a degree in Business is.

Besides, were there not other high-minded notions that underpinned that credential - ideas of self-development and virtuous leadership? And more crass notions of polish and status? Were these not the self-justifications of these elites, made manifest through the institutions?

As a side note - I do strongly suspect elite schools will bring these ideas back. If not for virtue, for necessity - as schools seek to self-justify in ways that go beyond the dollars they risk losing.

But I was referring to happiness more generally as enjoyment, joy, satisfaction - that type of thing.

And in that case - there are plenty of ways being better = less happy. Eg if I were to sacrifice myself to save my family, then that’s the best version of me, but I’d be pretty dang unhappy about it.

UChicago should be pretty uniquely positioned to address the problem of AI writ large. They already require a full year of each philosophy, literature, and history (all through primary sources). This "Core" should already be fairly AI-proof, given they are primarily small-group, discussion-driven courses; oral exams, in-class essays, or even graded discussions should be straightforward adaptations.

And yet, the university shifted towards professionalism before AI ("training a mind for the workforce" rather than "the good life").

Already, this transition did what the author observes AI is doing. I would hardly believe someone who cheats through an econ/stats major is less educated - if only through osmosis - than someone who honestly completes Business Economics.

And so I wonder - if the damage of AI is primarily instrumental to the broader trend of hyper-professionalism, what damage has it actually done?

If we automate away the signal to companies "yes, I can do stats for you," does that free students to focus more on the _less_ professional aspects of education?

Sure, it undercuts credentialism, making the "piece of paper" near worthless - but if our aim of education is just to "be better," should that not give us hope?