US is becoming a culture of 'Good enough'

This is very prevalent in Eastern Europe, near east, probably China and India, not sure. Certainly not Japan.

Culture - is what people do when nobody is watching (or they think that nobody is watching) (I am stealing this definition from somewhere else).

So changing from good-enough culture to 'We are closer to perfectionists, culturally' -- is a big change that would take generations.

To be honest -- I am not if there is a 'one thing' that would drive this, may be it is an instinct, something built-in, more prevalently, in specific ethnics groups but not in others? if it is an instinct, then it should be preservable during immigration. Are the Japanese when living for more than on generation in a 'good enough culture' preserving the perfectionist traits ?

"US Supreme Court: Immigration to US is still a privilege, not a right. A US citizen has a right to marry a GS-13 gang member, but the right does not extend to giving him a US immigrant visa."

From high frequency traders, to the fund managers, to money managers, to Jim Cramer-style filth marketing stock picks.

Hoping that investing in US equity markets as a retail investors, will bring you same benefits as it did for folks in '60s, 80s and 90s -- is being delusional, and lacking critical thinking.

The US institutions that supposedly provide a system of checks and balances, and a form of judicial and executive branch oversight, had long been gone.

We are now in the era of corruption, selective outrage, a system of sabotage/entrapment-of-opposition/spying and executive-level incompetence across most of the institutions that are supposed to provide businesses with a level-playing-fields, and consumers with trust/confidence on those businesses.

The founder of Facebook too

The founder of Google grew up in Academic family.

--

All of them received financial support, reducing risks loosing living expenses. Risk of loosing livelyhood, significanly changes how a founder or an enegineer spends their time.

Connecting young people to networks of rich, influencial and generally experienced & smart people -- is a huge deal as well.

It improves their verbal skills, perception management, broadness their knowlege.

All of the above, can probably be easily found in many Stanford, Harvard, MIT graduates...

None of the are 'competitively obtained skills' due to 'hard work'.

--

Additionally moral choices that favor lying, fudging facts and intentions -- may also be a characterstics of graduates from those types of schools... This an opinion.

---

All of the above contributes to successfull financial outcomes.

None are particularly representative of person's merits compared to others...

a)Members of political elite that get insider trading stock tips. (illegal of course). The number of folks in usa congress and senate that become 'very lucky' investors after they join the rank, has to be amazing

b)Lucky

c) everybody else -- that looses.

Overtime, I would say last 30 years, the amount of 'influencing' retail investors to trap them into unreasonable actions had gradually increased.

So the percentage of folks going becoming the victims of the charade, will become higher.

Certainly if you concentrate on ( b ) you create the plausible deniability defense for the manipulators

Selective outrage judiciary system is a hallmark of Tier-3 dictatorship.

That means that government's law enforcement, spy agencies, and other instruments directed at combating criminal activities inside the country or unfriendly regimes -- are now turned to be used against political opposition.

Selective outrage judicial system, obviusly means that justice is not blind. That, in turn means -- the justice is lost.

Tier 2 dictatorship -- will be legislative changes curbing dissent (in both elections into legislative bodies and the laws themselves around elections, financial instruments, etc).

Tier 1 -- will be constitution changes solidifying the extended rule of one or several individuals for unlimited amount of years.

Musk and his team are zigzagging to evaluate possible business models that make money.

People are saying this because, HFT sounds similar to 'crypto mining'. That's people with best infrastructure, the 'big-guys' -- win. While leaving out the retail investors as broiler chicken, pumped with 'drugs' (by influencers) to spend more on imaginary assets, so that they can be used for 'food' by these 'big-guys'.

There are different influencers for retail investors vs crypto. In retail investing there are promises of 'retirement paradise', actual tax deductions, the Jim Cramer-like people (at least what I heard in US)

For crypto investing the influencer are different, the geography is wider. A promise to participate in markets if you do not live the country that has adopted US/UK-based financial services.

- - - By the way, I think the markets will still have liquidity if there is a rule to wait, for say, 30 min before a stock that was just recently bought -- can be sold (unless by a clear fat finger mistake)

This rule will cause the HFTs to stop existing in the current form.

That will always attract both talent and con-artists to US, Canada etc.

Because for the same amount of effort (or same amount of risk for the con-artists) -- the rewards are much higher.

This will only change if US currency will stop being the reserve currency of the world.

When (or if) US will stop being reserve currency of the world, it will cause a cascading effect that will likely cause a temporary collapse of the socio-economic, judicial, and political pillars of Western economies and Canada, Australia.

Then all these talent acquisition strategies will stop working.

All the policies will turn towards reducing chances of civil wars that will be breaking inside these countries.

Until then, it is hard to blame immigrants for seeking higher standard of living for the same amount of effort.

And governments will not really care what will benefit the locals. Because the political systems in Canada, US, UK are not really representative of the people, they are representative of the lobbyist and powerful interests.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa...

I think the question here is who is entitled to have the 'revenge' or the reparation or the 'affirmative action'

People who were persecuted or opressed? or their offspring?

For example German government agreed to pay reparation to Jews in (some?) Eastern European countries and Russia, that were alive at the time of WWII and lived on the territories that the Germany attacked.

The reparation from what I know were 2,000 or 4,000 USD one time payment.

--

So in that model a) the person receiving the reparation had to be alive at the time of the crime. b) had to be on the territory where the crime was committed c) I do not think the person needed to prove that they were directly affected by the crime

from what I know the reparation was selective. It did not cover Gypsys, did not cover non-Jews

--

I do not know what the right model is.

Can a nation be responsible for the crimes their government has committed? For how long?

If the answer to the above is 'yes' (that the nation is responsible) -- wouldn't that justify terrorism? wouldn't that justify blood-revenge practice?

But that revenge can go for generations, and at some point will be reversed -- that means, in turn, endless wars.

--

May be the correct answer is to limit the action of 'righting the wrongs' to the people who were the victims and alive at the time of the crime ?

But that does not seem to be fair to the victims either

'how would organized criminal deception, selective outrage judiciary system, powered by a federal spy agency operatives actively suppressing information relevant in election -- would look?'

For some, the answer would be: 'yes' it would exactly like we saw in 2020.. the story with the President's son laptop with info suggesting his dad takes a '10% cut' while peddling political influence.

for some, the answer would be 'no', the CIA did not meddle in US election, and there is enough of 'plausible deniability' to support this view...

a) economic b) legal c) selective-outrage judicial/law enforcement d) personal bias (of the execs)

In US, before Musk -- Twitter was succumbing to (c) and (d) During Musk era, in US -- Twitter is facing (a) (c) (d) . Although it seems that (a) is not that strong/relevant.

In Turkey, today, Twitter is facing ( b ) and ( c ).

--

As users and observers we have to realize these pairs (Country + Pressure type union) and make relevant conclusions about the Country and about Twitter execs.

We cannot just remove the 'type' system out of these, and make conclusions.

Alergies is a clear sign that these are not 'hidden', 'waiting to be discovered' symptoms.

My personal view is that this a combination of the following top factors (in that order):

1) long-distance travel causing quick spreading of various infections illnesses stressing our immune system

2) Food (too much sugar and carbs)

3) Water and air pollution

4) vaccines 'boosters' chasing immunity to rapidly changing pathogens

I am going to say that every large 'super' institution will end up in this problem ... Unfixable.

Whether it is military, judiciary or educational system -- they have the same issues as the healthcare system -- when they grow 'super-large' and become managed centrally (either directly or via near-centralized money flows).

It is the nature of end-days of human-driven society super-structures (gradual corruption, then selective-outrage decision making, then more corruption, then a form of centralized control that removes innovation/investment incentives, then the down-fall in quality of function/service, then the destruction).

So the only solution to that, and I am 'stealing' this idea from the US founding fathers -- is to avoid having these near-centralized super structures.

Many think that we need this superstructures (including near-monopolies in business) to build complex things: planes, vaccines, CPU chips.

But we do not, and we should find a political and economical systems that are effectively based on many localized 'guilds' and decision centers linked into ad-hoc-chains to create increasingly better outcomes (with the cost of some repetition, some anarchy, and some missteps).

Military and supreme court are the only institutions that I think should be centralized, but they have to be ran with checks and balances that are distributed across the many 'local' decision and power centers.

So that's the only way I can think of to avoid this constant periodic death of the human-led super-structures.

Another site [1] explains this as a the congressman is questioning whether SEC is practicing selective-outrage, rather than the function of governance.

Finding a really bad apple, and then using to blaming the whole industry of de-centralized finance, is very similar how criminal activities are used to persecute legal firearm ownership in US.

With that said, this republican politician is a lawyer, -- and to my 'layman' mind -- every lawyer politician is bad, unless they prove otherwise.

[1] https://tokenist.com/congressman-says-ftx-not-failure-of-cry...

Is that an issue, and if yes why does that need to be addressed?

So what if Sam, or Bernie Madoff were Democratic politician contributors [1] >".. Alleged Ponzi scheme mastermind Bernard Madoff has been a major political donor, directing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic lawmakers over the past two decades." [1]

While certainly, several attributes of these people seem to be 'in-common'.

But they just chose to contribute to whoever they though has judicial, legislative and economic power at the time.

If it would be libertarians, or constitutional conservatives (the new MAGA folks) that could influence judicial and legislative powers, then they would have received the contributions.

It just happened to be Democrats for the time periods that Sam and Bernie were active. It is not that the Democrats 'enabled' them.

So I do not see how this article is bringing light to something, that it is not.

[1]https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/17/madoff-was-...

The are a lot of incentives to get 'published' or to get 'sponsored. And there are no incentives to question validity of methods or results (unless these are 'sponsored').

Formalized methodology underpinning scientific skepticism, should be taught as part of first 4 years of college (or even specialized vocational schools).

There are should magazines in every field, dedicated to skepticism, the recent discoveries, methods of analysis, etc. There are should be commercial and tax-payer funded sponsorships available to do just that.

May be, there should be advanced degrees in statistical claim validation methods, and so on.

Speech control (Censorship) is used to remove 'independent thinking' as a state of mind.

The current view in US, Russia, UK, China, Canada, etc and most of other countries -- is that 'leadership', 'business leaders', and 'the scientists' -- know better.

Independent thinkers usually, not simultaneously fluent in economics, biology, geopolitics, financial services, etc. So when they question not just 'status quo' promoted by the 'leadership', but also the motives behind that -- they are labeled various bad names (eg. uneducated, backwards, etc..)

Gab exists for independents to share, develop, often change the position that one builds up questioning the authorities.

The authorities, of course, consider that a threat. And so does F-Droid.

F-Droid, therefore is not for freedom. It is for complacency.

I am Jewish, was an atheist just a year ago, now studying Torah, Talmud, etc. My background is mathematics (abstract algebra) and CS. Not observant (yet) – as I writing this on Shabbat.

My family escaped dictatorship before, and now I am seeing it is being built up here -- different words, of course, but same action as was done by Mao, Stalin, Hitler (label, suppress, exterminate (or suffocate economically as in case in UK/US/Canada) )

I visit gab quite often (well ... a couple of times a week, for me that's often).

Most of the posts, just like on HN -- I do not find intellectually stimulating. A lot of repetition, etc -- but for me, they key is to know that people have freedom of communication and expression. It is more important than if I agree with what they express.

I am also glad that Gab now have some politicians, and people who are running (in US politics) on there as well.

Doctors (with anti mRNA-mandate stance), like Robert Malone is there as well.

I also think that this un-reasonable boom in bitcoin valuation made a number of people rich enough -- to not go through the typical ladder of VC/financial services, high-paying jobs route.

Which means that we now have a number of millionaires who want to project their influence, their position on free speech -- who did not grow up in the 'status-quo' world. This is also a positive outcome of BTC (even though I missed the boat on crypto!)

a) people that do live in a structured society, have to trust somebody. Because one cannot be an expert in everything.

In the sea of deceit, figuring out the 'right pundits, rights representatives' to trust is very very difficult.

Certainly, once a person figures out the 'members-to-trust', then dealing with discrepancies, mistakes, and differences of opinion within that circle -- is somewhat a different matter.

Those differences, in my view, will not result in ideological separation that I am mentioning in my original comment. The error delta is always built in in how we deal with 'honest mistakes'.

b) With regards to: >"... but it seems like you're again thinking that everything can be known / black and white .."

As I mentioned above, I do not particularly think that I was creating a false dichotomy. If I did, I am sorry, I hope my explanation above made sense.

But I do want to reveal something:

following through to a yes/no state, a binary end -- is something that I tend to think as a 'feature' of my thinking process :-).

I tend to see that my thought 'resolves' into a 'black/white' (binary) end state. While many steps to that might be very much 'gray' (non-binary).

As a personal guide, when I engage in this type of thinking -- I make it an 'axiom', that 'gray areas', eventually have to collapse into binary choices.

This 'eventual-binarity', in my view, is caused by simply the fact that we either alive or we are not alive.

or,

We either have a partner to create a family with or we do not.

or,

We either have biological progeny, or we do not.. and so on.

So that binary eventuality is built into basics of our existence.

Therefore when thinking about future state, I want it to represent those results.

To reiterate, certainly, there are many 'gray areas' in the steps to that finality of a cycle.

Wars (civil wars) might have many many reason, and they start as 'grey' reasons -- but at the end the brutality of those events revolve around very binary actions.

In my initial comment I suggested that there is a cycle that ends and starts with some sort of serious struggle and tragedy -- between representatives/followers of the 2 mind sets.

The binary choice there -- is that our society gets into that cycle or not.

I have not mentioned what may be ways for us to get out of the cycle, so I hope I did not leave the impression that those can be easily assumed from my comments.