> Like buying off Trump, which probably had a lot to do with us starting the Iran war...

Oil companies have actually not benefited from America's middle-eastern wars. America's regime-change wars have made the region less profitable for US oil companies. Why invest in infrastructure in countries with unstable regimes, or risk of infrastructure becoming a target?

If anything, energy companies would benefit from the sanctions on Iran being lifted, so they could invest in infrastructure there, or buy gas from Iran.

I hope one day this silly 'war for oil' meme will disappear.

cough Russia cough

My employer isn't particularly bad for society, but let's pretend they are. My company is a large employer of foreign workers. I already live in fear of being priced out by foreign bodyshop firms. If I decided what we were doing was immoral, and dug my heels in. I'd just be replaced by a H-1B worker. If everyone else in my company decided they wouldn't build the torment nexus, we'd all just be replaced by H-1B workers. It'd be a minor inconvenience to the company, but they'd weather it just fine. Under this system, any kind of collective bargaining becomes impossible, moral, financial, or otherwise.

I'm so glad someone brought this up. It irks me when I hear Americans detail every minor fraction of their genetic makeup: 1/4 Italian, 1/8 German, 1/16... etc. But they don't speak any of these languages, they've never even visited these countries. It's such a matter of pride for a lot of Americans, but it's just a costume.

A quote I found here on HN, that I really liked: "Americans will say they are Italian because their great grandma ate spaghetti once, but God forbid someone is American because he was born there" - mvieira38 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43930642)

Does it really bother you that people care about their heritage? US culture is a culture that assimilates, people remember where they come from. It's almost mean-spirited that yall fault them for this. Better than forgetting. I remember where my ancestors came from because they came here from somewhere they were not wanted.

What I would ask you is why does it irk you, why do you care? Is it some hindance to my culture that I want to learn about it and try to "cosplay"? What would you prefer that we act as though we're here sui generis? Is somebody's culture lesser because they're not in that country at that time?

People of Italian ancestry in the US did not forget everything about their past, in many cultures that transition is even more recent; I remember my immigrant grandmother. Comes off as gatekeeping people who would otherwise be your relatives.

It's massively irritating because it's the usual US blend of total ignorance and massive arrogance.

I used to do re-enactment in the UK, and after almost every show I'd have some idiot wander up and say "I'm a Saxon!" and blather shite at me about what that meant about their identity and culture.

If I asked if that meant they weren't American, then obviously they'd react in horror at the suggestion.

The idea that my culture, my history, can just be co-opted as part of someone else's cosplay identity, is tiresome at best. But then they walk up to me and expect me to recognise them as a fellow Saxon? No. Fuck off you annoying fucking wanker.

And I notice that none of them claim to be English or even British. Oh no, too much Braveheart and The Patriot for that.

The weirdest part is that they stop tracing back the second they hit someone interesting, as if nothing interesting happened before that person. If their great-great-grandfather was Scottish, they then assume everyone before him was 100% super duper Scottish, and that that has conferred "cultural traits" through some weird-ass blood magic or something.

But Europeans are diverse mutts as well.

I'm Swedish. But my last name is 100% German, easily recognisable as a German name, super common. Because my paternal ancestor immigrated from Germany in the 1600's and brought the name with him. My mother's maiden name was Czech, also very easily recognisable as such, and my uncle and my cousins have that name as well.

But I would never in a million years call myself German. I am not German. I am not Czech. My cousins aren't Czech. All of our parents were born in Sweden. All of our grandparents were born in Sweden. The vast majority of our great-grandparents were born in Sweden. We are all 100% Swedish.

The idea that I would call myself German because of my last name is completely ridiculous, but that is exactly what these cosplaying Americans are doing, even though they don't speak German, and I do. My dad speaks fluent German. My maternal grandfather spoke fluent German. I have so much more claim to "German-ness", whatever that is, than these cosplayers, and I wouldn't dream of doing it.

And then they bleat about how their great-great-whtaever was German, and because of that they "feel so connected to the Alps".

What's funny about those Europeans gatekeeping European ethnic identity from Americans, is that their tune will change immediately if we ask them if an African who has been there for 5 years is English or German.

See the response from marcus_holmes about "Irishness" in this thread. It's essentially the position of ethnic nationalist parties like Restore Britain. But in a different context he'd be ranting about civic nationalist parties like Reform UK or One Nation...

Basically, if an American is claiming to be whatever, you can use a purity standard close to the Nuremberg laws to exclude them. But an Indian or African who arrived 5 years ago is a true blood Aussie mate, because saying anything else would be doing a racism.

The AussiemBerg cultural test ain't that hard cobber .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drkcOzCjuuU == 100% True blood Aussie.

'kin oath

> those Europeans gatekeeping European ethnic identity

No no no, no-one is gatekeeping ethnicity. If you have Irish heritage, you have Irish heritage. That's a fact.

We're gatekeeping cultural identity and nationality, because these cosplaying Americans seem to think that their ethnicity confers culture and nationality by weird blood magic or something, and that's not how it works.

> if we ask them if an African who has been there for 5 years is English or German.

Someone who is not ethnically German, but has immigrated to Germany and speaks the language, is way more German than a cosplaying American whose parents and grandparents were all Americans, doesn't speak German, knows nothing about German culture, has never lived in Germany, but who has one ancestor who came from Germany.

If you're a first-generation immigrant, you get to choose what you identify as. If you speak the language of your new country and if you've become a citizen, sure, you can call yourself that. I don't think a lot of people will object to that.

Because, and this is the fuel for this clash, we care the most about culture and nationality, instead of heritage and ethnicity.

> Basically, if an American is claiming to be whatever

Because they're not, their culture is American, their nationality is American, they're American.

> But an Indian or African who arrived 5 years ago is a true blood Aussie mate, because saying anything else would be doing a racism.

No they're not, no it's not, and my what a lovely strawman you made up there.

It's not Americans doing these things. I've met plenty of Europeans with exotic identity claims, romanticizing some past culture instead of the living culture around them - Viking metal rather than folk music, to put it like that (there are also of course responsible ways to enjoy exotic metal genres).

By making it into Americans vs. Europeans you're doing a bit of what you're criticizing yourself. Yeah sure, we all agree someone walking up to you and saying they're Saxon is embarrassing, but that sweet old lady from Minnesota who's done rose painting (a national romantic fad around the time her ancestors immigrated) for 20 years is part of a living culture, which isn't simply "American", even if she has outrageous Norwegian pronounciation and otherwise isn't someone you'd like to identify with.

Viking metal is a folk music tradition of Europe! Just a very modern one that postdates the invention of the electric guitar and Tony Iommi losing his fingertips in an industrial accident :)

A lot of Viking-themed metal is pretty historically uninformed and cheesy, although that's true of lots of metal and for that matter lots of other art.

Yes, I'll accept that it's a modern folk tradition. And I'm actually OK with cheesy too, as long as something doesn't pass itself off as more historically accurate than it is. As Farya Faraji pointed out, we don't know what Norse Viking music was like, but it's unlikely to have included throat singing, and we know they liked pan pipes. (Invading England to a George Zhamfir soundtrack?)

> that sweet old lady from Minnesota who's done rose painting (a national romantic fad around the time her ancestors immigrated) for 20 years is part of a living culture, which isn't simply "American"

I 100% agree with you.

Men hun er faen meg heller ikke norsk.

Hvis hun ser på seg selv som norsk, så har ikke jeg noe problem med det.

If she sees herself has Norwegian, I have no problem with that.

We should let people identify with whatever they want. Identity is deeply personal - that's kind of the whole thing with identity - and as long as you don't use your identity to argue for something that's objectively wrong (such as rewriting history to suit it) then it's fine. If someone wants to identify as the same kind of thing as me, I may be flattered or embarrassed or worst case offended, but let's go for the facts, not with the identity.

top post, end thread

> But Europeans are diverse mutts as well.

Speak for yourself, because

> If their great-great-grandfather was Scottish, they then assume everyone before him was 100% super duper Scottish

That is, indeed, the correct assumption to make. I would recommend having a look at the work done on population genetics at Oxford University’s People of the British Isles project[1]. Even their homepage should relieve you of some misconceptions:

> The People of the British Isles (PoBI) project was initiated by Sir Walter Bodmer in 2004, in an effort to create the first ever detailed genetic map of a country. The United Kingdom’s history bristles with immigrations, wars and invasions, so the PoBI researchers faced a tremendous task in investigating how past events impacted the genetic makeup of modern British people.

> Results included a map (image below) showing a remarkable concordance between genetic and geographical clustering of our samples across the United Kingdom.

[1] https://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/

haha, great point about the language. An Irish friend of mine would speak Gaelic to any American he met who claimed to be Irish. Obviously none of them spoke the language, and he'd ask why not? Great question.

Wow. So I guess that the 60% of Ireland's population that don't speak any Gaelic are't Irish ether. And neither were the 94% that couldn't speak any (beyond "craic" & "uisce") 10 years ago. Please tell your friend that the majority of Ireland's population is English, not Irish. After all, if they were Irish, they'd speak the language, right? And not just in school when they're forced to.

WTF is wrong wth you people?

Stop straw-manning, no-one is denying your heritage or your connections. Your grandmothers were Irish.

But you're not. You're American, with Irish heritage. You were born in America to American parents. You are super welcome to learn about Irish culture, about your heritage. You are super welcome to visit Ireland, visit the place of your fore-mothers and other ancestors. You can enjoy Irish culture as much as you want. Learn riverdancing and blast Michael Flatley all day long. You can even enjoy the bastardised commercialised version that is the totally fake US retail holiday "St Patrick's day". Wear some tacky green beads, put on a green hat, drink fifteen pints of Guiness! Sláinte! Have fun!

The one thing we're specifically asking you not to do, is to call yourself Irish. That's the only thing we're gatekeeping. You're Irish-American. You have Irish heritage. You have Irish ancestors. You have Irish family heirlooms. But you're not Irish.

Why the hell is that so important to you? I'm personally a lot more annoyed with faux "Norwegian" paraphernalia (a lot of which I see every day, because I live in a tourist town which wants to sell them what they want) than what people call themselves.

Because it encourages the weird cosplayers, who will then claim to be "more Italian than the Italians", which is complete nonsense.

Because it's weird fetishisation of European cultures that are both seen as superior to American culture, but also at the same time as inferior.

Because it's rooted in weird beliefs in blood magic; that DNA somehow confers culture.

No, the word people use to describe themselves does none of these things. It's just a word.

Replying to ""Obviously none of them spoke the language, and he'd ask why not? Great question." with the reason is straw manning?

Don't worry long ago I had my naivety removed by folks like you and no longer feel any fondness or interest for ireland or irishness, and passed none of it down to my kids. Ireland has never been brought up for a vacation destination where as I convinced my mom to gift me a trip to all of the UK upon graduation. Hopefully you will be relieved of the burden of having to deal with Americans with feelings of common bonds (like I used to have) after my generation passes.

I'm sorry your people have had to endure this wanting to connect from Americans and them trying to figure out if the weird/quirky things their family did come from your culture.

"Fine, I won't connect then!1!!"

What's wrong with you, you're responding to literally the opposite of what I said? You are free to connect, to seek your roots, figure out weird quirky things from the culture of your ancestors, and nurture as much fondness for Ireland and Irishness as you please. No-one in Ireland (Note, I'm not Irish!!) is gonna object to any of that.

The one thing, the ONE FUCKING THING we're asking you not to do is to call yourself Irish, because that will guaranteed piss off everyone you meet in Ireland.

How is this difficult to do or understand? We're asking one thing.

Everything else is up for grabs. You can appropriate as much culture as you please, real, fake, stereotypical, exaggerated, whatever. Grab it, use it, do it, perform it, that's fine. You don't need to excuse yourself or justify yourself or claim ancestry or heritage or anything. Absolutely no-one will gatekeep the culture. Enjoy it, all of it! Do this one thing, and real Irish people will be super happy to share their culture with you.

Dude. The vast majority of Irish people can't speak a word of Gaelic. 10 years ago when I went to Ireland, the bilingual population was 0.1%!!!!! How many people use Gaelic in their daily life in Ireland? Less than 100 000. Guess the rest of you are just English, pretending to be Irish, eating fish & chips & going to Tesco's...

The only thing I ever heard from Irish people that they hated about being "Irish-American" was the idea that Ireland was a magical pixie world full of leprechauns and gold.

I don't think anyone has a problem with saying "my family came from Ireland", or even "my family was forced to flee Ireland because the British are bastards". Or even "Irish American" would be OK.

The problem we all see is that you're saying that you are Irish. If you weren't born in Ireland, your parents weren't born in Ireland, you don't speak Irish, you don't pay taxes in Ireland, you can't vote in Irish elections, you wouldn't join the Irish military, you don't understand Irish culture, or know anything about Irish history, then in what way are you Irish?

You're not. But you have redefined "Irish" to mean something else. And that's what pisses people off. There are actual Irish people out there. Invent your own identity.

So, if you are living in London and not paying taxes(to Ireland), you are not Irish? Dude, you are clearly mixing ethnicity and nationality. Plenty of Irish in UK, that does not know Gaelic - same situation in Ireland. There are in fact more Irish Gaelic speakers living in USA/Canada than in Ireland.

And Americans are claiming ethnic ancestry - not national ancestry. And many Irish migrated out of Ireland, when it was not a country - and paying taxes is irrelevant in this gatekeeping of identities.

That is your right to not claim your German ancestry, as generally it is a viable solution to just not stand out and blend in with crowd, but frankly that is also your right to claim your ancestry and seek refuge in German speaking countries, if things go south in Sweden and Caliphate is established there or some Finns invade and makes your life impossible, so generally - this is not your gate to keep, as these can be considered as an open choices. And I would think that current age of open borders that we have now might end and claiming different identity might be the only viable option to migrate somewhere else.

Ethnicity and nationality are not the same, though they have until very recently overlapped to an enormous extent. Someone might well be of anglo-saxon ethnicity and be American.

Being British myself, I find it fun to tease the yanks about all manner of things, but actual animus of the kind you’re displaying just looks like a massive chip on the shoulder.

Sorry when your ancestor's ran mine out we survived and chose to keep a bit of identity, some concept of self. You're right, we should have surrendered every right to it, every notion of those that came before us. Ungrateful us not to have submitted in a second way (the first was not submitting and, you know, surviving).

You became American.

Identity doesn't work that way. Doesn't change where my family came from, my families traditions, what identity bits my family chose to hang onto, or how we try to understand the world.

Good job keeping up your culture of being petty judges of us though. At least when your ancestors did it we were your neighbors and you had good cause (we were the wrong religion or whatever your ancestors hated in us and your family got to live and stay and mine had to flee and die). It's kinda pathetic to care after you ran us off to still try to tell us how to be and to define us instead of letting us define ourselves.

Wild to see you so proud to be petty, small, and hateful of people that did nothing to you all but want to be friendly.

Cool on you for re-examining your position (irregardless of the outcome of it). Sadly I'm past the point of being that person who felt kinship/a bond with Europe/Europeans, and didn't instill it in my kids. Like I said it'll probably be a moot point when my generation passes so guys won't have to deal with it forever.

JKR is correct though. "Woman" cannot merely be an identity for men to appropriate as they please. We exist in a social, historical and legal framework in which it is understood that women are female, and that men who call themselves women are just pretending.

Bro you made an account just to post this? We live in a society where the people that push the view you are are unserious ideologues that excuse/hide/ignore the Epstein files among a multitude of actual other real issues, that continue to vote in politicians with numerous scandals more serious than your 'identity definition' bs here. Focus on something actually important like 'the meanie Irish poster hurt my feelie feelz online' like I do. Or all the messed up stuff people who claim to care about/protect society are doing while they distract you with 'but the trans'.

It irks me because it usually manifests as embracing cartoonish stereotypes of the most superficial aspects of the culture: "I'm 1/64th Italian, so I like pizza. I'm 1/16th German, so I like beer. etc."

It doesn't keep me up at night, but I think it's tacky and vulgar.

It might usually manfiest as that or you're picking out the most superficial parts of people's identity to criticize. It's just not how I and others view it when we think about where the people who made us come from.

Or, to put it another way: your criticism is tacky and vulgar. Perhaps what you're describing is "cosplaying" but that's not how immigrant communities see themselves. I do in fact know the perecentages of my national makeup but pizza and beer aren't how I celebrate that. Nobles know their ancestry down to the smallest detail, is somebody really tacky for knowing that technically they are 1/4th Italian? I don't think attacking somebody's identity is ever fair; it costs you nothing but is everything to them.

I think that a lot of people are irked by the sheer inconsistency of the American culture: celebrate your immigrant heritage at the same time you protect “your” American land and keep those pesky immigrants out. Not personal.

There's a depth to what you're saying that I don't think you're truly aware of..."flooding the block" -- or the mass importation of immigrants to build a political machine -- has been part of my country's politics since the Tammany Hall days (political machines). Tale as old as time in the US and it's one of the reasons why there's so much skepticism. Like what you said here, we KNOW how this works because at some point we were the Irish\Italian\or Mexican that got shipped in. We're not blind to party politics and ginning up house delegates or patronage politics.

Really so its okay if a Canadian, Australian or New Zealander does it?

It wouldn't be. But they never do it, so I don't have to worry about it.

> perogies

Do you mean "pierogi," the Polish dumplings?

> halupschi

I have no idea what this is. Are you talking about галушка? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halu%C5%A1ky)

> Didn't speak any language other than English and his parents were 2nd generation Canadians, who also spoke nothing but English.

> Never spoke Ukrainian or heard any word of Ukrainian except for the names of the food & of some of my older relatives.

This insanely non-self-aware post perfectly illustrates my point.

Like many Americans, I am from a European immigrant background. For what it's worth, I have spent a lot of time in x-land, and I speak x-ish. But I am an American. My ethnicity is mixed. I grew up in America. You would never know my heritage unless I told you, which I probably never would. Because I hate hearing the "Me too! I'm x-ish too!" spiel from another American who can't even pronounce their own surname correctly.

> that's not how immigrant communities see themselves.

Whoa, who's talking about immigrant families? Immigrant families came from somewhere else. That's their identity, because it's where they came from. But if your family has been here for a few generations, then I have news for you: you're not immigrants!

> I do in fact know the perecentages of my national makeup. Nobles know their ancestry down to the smallest detail, is somebody really tacky for knowing that technically they are 1/4th Italian?

The game of percentages is absurd to begin with. It's one thing to know you have some ancestors from Japan. It's another to say "I am 12.5% Japanese!" What the hell does that even mean? When noble families recognize their ancestry, first off, they don't make ridiculous claims of percentage. No nobleman says "I am 1/16 Catalonian". They'd laugh at you. "You mean to tell me your culture is 1/6 Catalonian?" Second, they don't identify with the culture of an ancestor if it has no presence and reality for them. The British royal family has German roots (and like all European royal families, a complicated web of ancestry spanning virtually all of Europe in some way or another), yet they don't claim to be German or Hessian. It would be absurd. They're the British royal family, and much of them have been the British royal family for some time!

(I do recognize cultural identity as complex, of course, more complex than how many people see it, but it's complex when the cultural dimensions are actually real, not fabricated by the imagination.)

> I don't think attacking somebody's identity is ever fair; it costs you nothing but is everything to them.

But it's not their identity. It's a pretense. If some distant ancestor's cultural origin is everything to someone, then you're proving the absurdity of of the whole thing.

Like I say, it's a socially-accepted form of cosplaying.

The percentages come from their ancestry (their GRANDPARENTS), not culture.

Obviously. But the fallacy trades on that insignificant mathematical curiosity to imply something that is ultimately cultural in nature.

Being "Japanese" is a matter of culture, not some kind of "magical Japanese DNA". So it doesn't make sense to say you're "12.5% Japanese". There is no "Japanese DNA". This is different than claiming that you have Japanese ancestry.

> Does it really bother you that people care about their heritage?

I'm making an observation. It's not a unique observation. People in countries of ancestry find it ridiculous when Americans far removed from their culture visit and claim to be "one of them", or worse, like a member of "the family". I'm sure you don't enjoy people who make fraudulent claims about themselves either, especially when it is an attempt to establish a false camaraderie with you.

I think the mid-century pressure to assimilate into corporate American culture, along with all the tactics used by the state to disrupt ethnic neighborhoods and communities like scattering them across newly-created suburbs to hasten assimilation, left people disoriented, traumatized, and feeling culturally homeless. There's a nostalgia for the ethnic neighborhood that was lost (in the case of Italian neighborhoods, you can see it reflected in movies like "The Godfather"). Assimilation - and synthesis - would have happened on its own, eventually, but this was an engineered process of rupture.

I also question your characterization of the phenomenon as "caring about one's heritage". It's one thing to take an interest in one's ancestry. That's perfectly fine and perfectly normal, but that's not what is at issue. I can look at my family tree and note whatever ancestors of other ethnic backgrounds there might be. It's another to claim as heritage and as identity some culture that your family shed generations ago. Culture is lived in a society, not a gene you inherit.

(Incidentally, this is why some Black Americans dislike the term "African American". Black Americans have been in the US longer than most Americans of European ancestry. They aren't "African". They're a cultural group that emerged in the America South. The case is similar with Jamaicans, Barbadian, St. Lucians, etc.)

> What I would ask you is why does it irk you, why do you care?

How about: why are you so bothered by this observation? It seems quite personal to you, which should perhaps be something bracketed if you wish to be objective.

> People of Italian ancestry in the US did not forget everything about their past

The most you can claim on the basis of these residual bits of knowledge and culture is Italian influence. Just because the Boston Brahmins know their English ancestry, or have English ancestry, doesn't mean they're English.

An "Italian American" generations removed from Italy is not the same as an "Italian", and so on. That's not a denial of influence or origin. It's just factually incorrect to say they are the same. Culturally, they are not.

> Comes off as gatekeeping people who would otherwise be your relatives.

It's interesting you call this gatekeeping. I am not the cause of such facts, and so I am not the one drawing up the boundaries of reality. I am merely recognizing them.

It seems, that people do not know that in USA there exists American ethnicity of relatively small population(for USA) - about 20 million that identifies themselves as Americans, so the quote is not correct.

However large majority of Americans have background of immigrants and they have right to claim their ancestry(though DNA companies are selling them as ancestry lineage their relatedness, which is not the same). You and other people that wants to gatekeep this have no right to decide for them what they want to identify as, just as Europeans nowadays are mixing up national identity and ethnic identity, which are not exact match even in Europe.

Not to mention that it shows an extreme ignorance of the fact that USA & Canada are not 1000's of years old. Of course people have a tie to ancestors who came here a few generations ago, and brought aspects of their culture with them.

I find that Euros dont really know anything about the USA. Im Canadian and when I travel I routinely shock Europeans by reminding them that the USA is a huge country of over 300 million people. They seem to think its about the size of Britain.

I dont know why it irks you guys. Canada does this too. It's because, unlike Europe, we haven't been here for thousands of years. My grandfather was from Dublin. He came to Canada and didn't want to go back to Ireland, ever, because he hated religion so much. But he still passed on aspects of Irish culture to us, and not because he wore green on St. Patricks day once.

Some people's jobs might be 'meaningless', but we're on the verge of lots of people's jobs being outright 'useless'. Anyone who's worked in a large corporation knows how small some people's useful output is already.

I've been wondering whether increased automation is going to cause some kind of employment crisis in western countries. It's possible we're on the verge of a "second industrial revolution" because of AI. I'll confess that I totally underestimated AI, and figured that by the time AI was writing decent code society would have formulated a plan for what to do when white-collar workers start becoming redundant. This obviously isn't what happened. What is going to happen to the swarms of Uber Eats riders on ebikes? Or all of the new immigrant truckers? Western governments have been keeping immigration relatively high to keep the service sector packed with unskilled, lowly paid service workers. What are we going to do with them all if drones replace Uber Eats riders, or self-driving trucks take over logistics? What I'm seeing now makes me doubt that we're going to look after all these people.

If AI can replace white collar workers than it will also cheap enough for everyone to start running their own business and join the capitalist class.

The problem is alot of people can only conceive of a life where they are handed work and a salary by someone else, when that was only ever a particular circumstance for the last few decades. Whether they can grow out of that is another question, but those who can't won't find much agency.

If your white collar skills are redundant at a company, they don't magically become valued if you call yourself a small business.

No? But I'd be creating products, not services that are already automated. Build that video game you always wanted to make, or setup a robot food truck offering your family recipes. Work with a consortium to build a luxury mall or theme park in your neighborhood. Or just invest/arbitrage in the market if you are too lazy to do it yourself. There is a vast amount of economic opportunities to take that aren't just pure labor offering.

This is why some form of UBI seems inevitable. Thinking all these people will retrain as data scientists or whatever is deluded and if you don’t do something the fabric of society will tear itself apart so it’s in the interests of the well off to come up with a solution here

I think it's more practical to work at lowering the retirement age. UBI has a lot of complications, but instead figuring out how to have people retire at 55, then 45, then 35, then 25, can get you close to that direction while ignoring the complications with outright UBI.

While I like this idea, in theory, I think inevitably we need a new bracket that isn't "retirement" per se. So many people hit retirement age and they simply cannot stop working. And still do things and still continue working (if off the books they must).

I wonder if, with your proposed system, we should start working towards something between full employment and retirement and let it be a significant epoch of life.

I've always felt like 45-55 should be a time where you should be heavily incentivized (if not outright subsidized) to give back while you've still got the juice in you.

Not sure where I'm going with this... Just a thought

Older people aren't being forced to work off the books. Very few occupations have mandatory retirement ages. I mean commercial pilots are forced to retire at 65 but pretty much everyone else can continue working a regular W-2 job at any age if they want to, even if they are simultaneously collecting Social Security benefits or other retirement fund income.

> So many people hit retirement age and they simply cannot stop working

In my case, I view retirement as being "financially independent" where someone doesn't have to work in order to obtain food, shelter, and health care.

At that point, there's always volunteering, artwork, inventing, watching grandchildren...

That is not a sensible goal to work towards. We already have demographic problems with a lower and lower ratio of workers to retirees. I am absolutely unwilling to pay higher taxes just so that someone else can retire early at 55, and I vote accordingly.

A critical part of figuring out how to have people retire younger is making sure that taxes don't perpetuate a welfare state. Keep in mind that, if you live in the US, right now our increasing national debt funds social security, with the money going to retirees who already have large 401ks and will will huge sums to their children who themselves are building their 401ks.

That being said, the "I get to keep everything, screw everyone else" mentality is a major problem, because it's hard to quantify how much of our earnings are a result of social investment. (IE, how much of your earnings result from taxpayer/debt supported education, roads, research, and other investments is difficult to quantify.)

There’s another solution: a culling.

Take the now useless people and get rid of them. AI will effectively usher in a new era of eugenics in which your right to live is determined by your economic value.

Who is considered 'useless' though?

Or just kill the fiscal hoarders who can't conceive of a sustainable closed loop economy where the working class gets a fair shake at living a life. There doesn't have to be billionaires/trillionaires.

AI might not have much actual impact on software engineering, but AI (Actually Indians) has. Companies are using AI as a justification for layoffs, and then just replacing those roles with cheaper engineers employed by bodyshop companies.

the funny thing is all Indian IT service cos are 30% down from their highs and based on unofficial and official data have laid off a lot of people , again on fears from AI based automation

When nobody wants to return to office, why not? The work from home shift was always going to accelerate the global pay equilibrium, it will continue to do so.

You hire discount engineers when you want to move to a maintenance and value extraction stage, something widespread in the industry at the moment due to changes is startup incentives and interest rates making entrenched players feel more safe.

It's not about "global equilibrium", because that misses completely that hiring a very expensive westener still has positive roi, but only if you are attempting to innovate.

It’s a larger shift from growth to mature business stages. All the growth of past couple decades is now maintenance

Is the shift because there's nothing to innovate, or because of economic headwinds? That's the real question to ask.

Projects are being cancelled left and right and teams dissolved, so this tells me that the former point is shakey. Something tells me that we'll have a tiny boom sometime after the AI bubble pops and suddenly innovation is "free" again. Or because smaller startups can actually get funded without needed to throw AI somewhere in their pitch deck.

There’s not a lot of actual innovation in software. Hasn’t been in quite some time. Any project a lot of these companies invest in has to be tied to a revenue stream or it doesn’t get funded. I think it’s a wholesale realization that they’ve been throwing money away at projects with no revenue and they’re shaping up/maturing as a company being smarter about what projects they invest in. I’m sure it has to do with tax code changes and such that initiated the bigger rethink. But it’s also just not a lot of big new foundational innovation taking place.

I’m not so optimistic. But glad some people are!

No need to innovate when you can instead spend your budget on lobbying to get laws past to allow you to rentseek.

Lots of people would be willing to take a paycut to WFH.

Most western people can’t take a cut that’s puts them on par with even a well paid Indian.

The laundering of data on US citizens into the private sector, and overseas, through this company is truly horrifying. Especially how fast it happened, and how little say we had.

how does it work?

Assuming this claim were true, which it isn't, the modern Israelis have genetically nothing in common with the Jews of the old testament. They don't have the same culture, religion, language or genetics.

Revived Hebrew seems to be a child of Ancient Hebrew? Judaism seems to have a continuation? I can't say I know the genetic situation of a while country, but it seems unlikely.

Maybe you've more to add, some sources to convince me?

Ali Khamenei: "The situation between America and Iran is this: When you chant 'Death to America!' it is not just a slogan – it is a policy.

https://www.memri.org/tv/iran-supreme-leader-ayatollah-ali-k...

I don't care about his opinion on America. Tell us about his policy on nuclear weapons.

There are only two or three dots. They're not hard to connect.

He talks a big game but he doesn't want everyone in his country to die. How do those dots line up for you?

When someone says he'd like to destroy you, spends half a trillion dollars pursuing that ambition instead of feeding his people, and is in the midst of attempting to wipe one of your closest allies off the face of the earth, I think you should believe him. What would it take for you to think it's more than just talk?

If my government was responsible for funding, training and defending foreign torture camps from international scrutiny, their citizens probably are justified in demanding the destruction of my states as a form of justice for unaccounted human rights abuses: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-mag...

> SAVAK was established in 1967 with help from both the CIA and the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.

> All observers to trials since 1965 have reported allegations of torture which have been made by defendants and have expressed their own conviction that prisoners are tortured for the purpose of obtaining confessions. Alleged methods of torture include whipping and beating, electric shocks, the extraction of nails and teeth, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a metal table heated to white heat, inserting a broken bottle into the anus, and rape.

Good luck convincing Iranians that they should welcome your kind into their country for any reason ever again.

I am skeptical that your description is an accurate depiction of Iranians' views regarding the US and their own government. It seems more likely that you're ascribing your opinion to a much larger group than is justified.

Okay. Come back to this comment in thirteen days, I think you'll be particularly disappointed in the progress America's "diplomacy" is making.

What's in thirteen days?

The expiration of the "reply" button on an HN comment chain.

No one wants my kind (Americans?) in Iran until they can go there as tourists. Apparently around 80% of Iranians would like that to be possible though.

There is a small distinction between sending CIA/Mossad goons into a country and sending braindead, overpaid middle-aged tourists into a country.

I guess that distinction is lost on the vast majority of Iranians who would like to kick out their current government and welcome Westerners.

It could collapse any minute now, the suspense is killing me.

Rrright. The North Koreans are also big fans of their government.

Anyone else here appreciate that this article appeared in a journal called 'PNAS Nexus'?

I'm glad you put your head out there and had the balls to say it.

It's nut lost on me.

You just don't understand how food addiction works. Going from 34 BMI to 28 (I'm at 26 now) was the hardest thing I ever done, and I had money, great friends, a great family and a doctor that followed me twice a month.

Willpower is not a muscle, it's a well that fill doing what you enjoy, and clear when used. During my diet, my work ethic was at the bottom, and I couldn't force myself to go out meet new people.

Now that I have a healthier weight and stopped dieting hard (I'm still constantly hungry, but now it's my life), I'm a great coworker, I met a lot of people, made life-changing decisions and I have a lot of willpower left to do all the little things right. If I had a drug that helped me control my appetite at the time, i would have taken it.

> Willpower is not a muscle, it's a well that fill doing what you enjoy, and clear when used.

I won't negate your experience, since this is such a personal thing, and it's not like we have a rigorous scientific understanding of these things. But to me, willpower does feel like a trainable thing. Doing hard things seems to make me better at doing other hard things. Limiting my TV makes me less likely to compulsively eat later. Working out hard makes me less likely to lie in bed scrolling on my phone. Doing hard coursework makes me more focused at work.

The caveat is that these changes seem to happen pretty gradually, and the gains can be lost pretty easily, just like with muscle.

But being in a perpetual caloric deficit can be pretty rough and can definitely sap your energy. Glad you found your way to a healthier weight.

It's different per thing. Yes, working out gives me energy (even though I hate it and am bored out of my mind doing it), but going hungry or resisting food isn't the same kind of thing. If I had a bad day at work, I'll usually go "fuck it" and eat a pizza. If I've gone hungry all day because I'm eating what I should, I'll be cranky and not as much fun.

I can definitely relate with the GP, even though your comment is relatable too. They're just different mechanisms, or they apply differently to different people.

Tangential to the discussion, but I'd encourage you to not give up trying to find a form of exercise that you don't find boring. It makes it much easier to get adequate exercise. Also, not having to spend time doing things you hate is nice.

For example, personally I find lifting in the gym or running on the treadmill to be quite boring. I like biking and running outside, especially on trails. A lot of people enjoy group classes like crossfit or yoga, since the social reinforcement can make it psychologically a lot easier.

Καλή τύχη.

Yeah, I (try to) cycle and play tennis, but due to some circumstances both are less frequent than I'd like. You need to lift weights too, though, to build and maintain muscle, so there's no getting out of that. I'll definitely need to do more cardio, though.

Thanks!

How have fat people gotten thinner without those meds up until now, then? Was their addiction not as strong as yours, as you seem to imply? They just didn't "understand"? Look, I went from being an absolute fucking fatass to 8% body fat out of willpower alone when I was 17. It took a lot, namely destroying every bad habit I upheld for years regarding food and exercise, but I wanted to do it bad enough, so I did. It was a really extreme and sudden change of mindset, like a flip of a switch, actually, because I had enough of the bullying and lack of self confidence. One day I just got mad enough and changed my whole life.

> How have fat people gotten thinner without those meds up until now, then?

Mostly, they haven't. You and I are outliers.

The population-level data tells us that overweight people are mostly unable to control their weight in the face of modern food. That being the case, it doesn't seem unreasonable to look for alternative solutions to the failed option of just telling people to eat less.

edit: regarding strength of addiction - I mean, of course, isn't it profoundly obvious that different people will have different strengths of addiction? I can drink without the slightest inclination to excess, while others are broken alcoholics. My grandfather didn't have the slightest interest in food beyond the calories needed to survive, while I have to fight every day to eat well.

Exactly, regarding strengths of addiction. I don't feel morally superior about not being an alcoholic... it's pretty clear that my experience of alcohol is just wildly different from some of my friends. I enjoy alcohol fine, but I never feel like I'm exercising willpower when I choose to stop after 1-2 drinks.

>edit: regarding strength of addiction...

It's profoundly obvious you're missing the point, and conflating somehow having a low degree of addiction to something with not being addicted at all to it. Your example about alcohol clumsily compares people addicted to it with people who obviously don't have a problem with it. We were talking, instead, about people, like myself, who had some degree of addiction to food, and still found it in themselves to overcome that shit. So it's two groups of people: addicts who beat their addiction, and addicts that didn't; not addicts and non-addicts, like you explained. Your examples, as you can see, are totally irrelevant and miss the point completely.

You also seem to imply that the degree to which you're addicted to something is the sole factor determining whether you will overcome your addiction or not, leaving your own will out of the equation. It should be logically self-evident that the fact that somebody beat their addiction says close to nothing about its "strength". One could have many physiological and psychological predispositions to food adiction and still beat it, while somebody with just a fraction of such problems could live a miserable life and never do away with it.

Me> different people will have different strengths of addiction

You> It's profoundly obvious you're missing the point, and conflating somehow having a low degree of addiction to something with not being addicted at all to it

Suggest applying some of that willpower towards paying attention to what you're reading.

> You also seem to imply that the degree to which you're addicted to something is the sole factor determining whether you will overcome your addiction or not

I don't imply anything of the sort. Willpower is one variable, level of addiction is another. What I do imply is that without deeper observation of a person's life, and the other areas in which they might demonstrate willpower, you can't make strong conclusions about their lacking willpower based simply on their weight.

Based on all I know about you (or you about me), we could each be people of tremendous willpower who overcame titanic odds to beat our food addiction, or we could simply be people who really quite like food who tried hard and overcame our mild predisposition.

the guy you're replying to also lost weight without the drugs... he says he would have taken them if they'd been available.

You have multiple type of food addiction. Most are hormones dependent. For some people, it's linked with insulin, and they will crave carbs, and probably modern diet doesn't help.

Mine is linked to grahlin, I'm just always hungry. Painfully so too (at least it used to be). Do you have a friend who doesn't like to eat, sometimes forget to, and only do so to avoid hypoglycemia? I'm the opposite, I produce too much grahlin, too fast. The weird part is that the more you eat/fatten, the more your hormone production increase.

My solution was regular, multiple days fast. Not calorie reduction (which was slightly painful, and very hard to follow), but full on fast, where the first two days are impossibly painful, but then your body start to ignore grahlin, and the last 3-5 are pretty much OK (hypoglycemia is an issue though, I did it with a doctor). And of course, more fibers in the diet (reducing milk-based products and meat helped).

Can't speak for the original commenter, but I would not concede that, because experiencing semaglutide has convinced me it's not true. The feeling I can now clearly recognize as something like "food addiction" disappeared uniformly for everything from Brussels sprouts to donuts.

Yeah, my fridge has been virtually empty of ultra-processed foods for years. Mounjaro silenced the little voice saying "hey, why not go dig into the leftovers?", and when I do find myself grabbing a late-night snack (because my glucose monitor says I need one), I find it much easier to eat a little scoop of yogurt rather than wiping out most of the chicken I cooked for my lunches that week. I have to remind myself to finish things off before they go bad, now.

Respectfully, have you ever had anything in your life that you have struggled desperately with, and needed help? Anything at all that might give you a little empathy on the topic?

I was obese twenty years ago, and lost the weight via diet and exercise. Keeping that weight off is the single hardest thing I have ever done, and a battle I still have to consciously fight every single day. Doing so causes me a great deal of pain and frustration, and I know that I'm someone who is right on the edge of not being able to control my weight. Why should it be that difficult? So that I can pass some kind of purity test?

The fact is that the food we eat has evolved over time, and is too hard to resist overconsuming for a large fraction of our population. If we can create more addictive food, why not create antidotes? If we could easily treat alcohol addiction with a pill, would we tell alcoholics to just apply willpower instead? Why would we want people to suffer like that?

I took compounded Mounjaro for two months. It was like a jolt to the system and got me back on track. I learned how to eat better and alter what I eat plus tracking it. Started walking and going to the gym. Started with 7k steps and now easily over 12k a day on average. I don’t drink soda and if I do it js Coke Zero, Pepsi Zero or Diet Coke. We just don’t buy it. I didn’t know about maximizing my protein and fiber.

It wasn’t short term at all like you say. Something was seriously wrong.

It’s everything though - if it was that easy to just start doing it then people would.

I needed a jolt and impetus to get better. I was depressed, worryful, everything.

I have lost 40 lb. I went from 255 to 229 with the assistance of Mounjaro. I stopped taking it but kept up with the regimen. I am now down to 214.

Some people who take it don’t do it right, they still eat crap and so those are the people who rebound or think they need to go up to 15. I was taking 2.5 then 5 when I stopped.

Yea it is willpower and discipline. Being on the medicine as an assistant along with a lot of research spurred by the community such as maximizing protein, fiber and water intake to become satiated was all that did it with exercise.

Consider the fact that, if a drug can make you skinny, perhaps a drug can also make you fat. Or, even your own body can make you fat. Sometimes, what we think are our choices, have more to do with our biology and environment.

Just like you can't will yourself to be healthy if you are sick with the Flu. Some people can't just will themselves to be skinny. This is why we have drugs and treatments, because our bodies are not perfect machines that work the way we want them to.

> Consider the fact that, if a drug can make you skinny, perhaps a drug can also make you fat.

Yes that would be Prednisone. People call it the devils tic-tac. Its a wonder drug with terrible long term costs to your body especially at higher doses.

Olanzapine, too. Gained 50 pounds on that stuff.

Insulin injections as well. Also, just about every anti-depressant.

> with our biology and environment.

Our biology hasn't changed much in recent years. Our environment has. So has our obesity levels. I mean, it's an "environment" that has "super size," as a default option.

Also, smoking levels have decreased.

Edit: In addition, anti-depressant prescription has sky rocketed.

This is the kind of comment that can change a person's life. Really thoughtful. I'm going to quote it in future. Thanks.

There is multiple effects fighting against people who want to lose weight:

* habits. often times, obese people use food as a stress response, as a reward, etc. this then makes them relapse.

* "target weight" of the body. there is a memory effect where once you have built up fat tissue, your body wants you to return to that weight. In other words, it's not just the first step that's hard, but all the steps thereafter. Relapse is easy.

* fat tissue makes you more hungry.

* environmental issues, like unwalkable cities, an entire industry putting chemicals into foods that make you addicted to them, its excessive marketing, missing availability of non-processed foods (large percentage of US population lives in food deserts), etc.

It's not just discipline of the individual holding them back.

It's also unlike most addictions, you have to eat few times a day if you don't want to die... alcohol, drugs, gambling are not required to survive, eating is.

Telling everyone "just get better willpower" is about as useful on a societal level as looking at a disabled person at the bottom of a set of steep stairs and telling them that the struggle is good for them.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I agree, at least partially. I think you're underestimating the "developing willpower" part, but I do think that helping people lose weight the themselves should be the solution, not chemicals.

These weight loss drugs are conditioning people to feel satisfied with less food in their stomachs, but only while they take the medication. If you don't put the same serious effort into improving your lifestyle, you're going to end up overeating again, gaining all that weight back, and probably going back on weight loss pills. Instead of solving the unhealthy dependency on food that most seriously overweight people struggle with, you're adding a dependency on medication.

Where I live, these drugs haven't even passed medical review for weight loss yet, they're purely prescribed for diabetics. That doesn't stop the illegal second hand market (taking drugs out of the hands of diabetics that are much better served with them) unfortunately.

In general, I do think weight loss drugs are better for society as a whole, as they save people from the ticking time bomb that is obesity, but I wish we could come up with a better solution.

The best way to change your lifestyle is to change it, and GLP-1 agonists make it easier to change your lifestyle. In fact, they don't work at all if you don't. Someone who's unable to change their diet and exercise routines while taking a GLP-1 agonist wasn't going to be able to do it without the medication, either.

And this talk of "dependency on medication" is ridiculous. Lots of people take medication every day to live a better life, or they use medical devices like eyeglasses and hearing aids, etc. That's one of the blessings of modern society.

I do make good decisions and put in 10k steps everyday, which according to my stepcounter puts me in the top 5% for people my age. I've managed to slow my progression into the abyss; but I'm still going there.

Truth be told, my body can't effectively lose and maintain weight unless I'm eating a strict 1500 calories and replacing the walking with an hour long run each day. I know this because I've tried it and managed to maintain it for 6-months. It was a herculean effort and despite the results I paid a toll both physically and mentally. This isn't to say that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to me; but my body will fight against them harder than most.

(I believe I would be a good candidate for these drugs. The only thing stopping me is the thought of having to be on them indefinitely.)

Do you object to pencil and paper because people write down reminders because their memory isn't good enough to remember everything?

Ozempic helps many people make better long-term decisions about their diet than they would otherwise. Do you think no one without extraordinary willpower should be able to "live a good life?" The drug doesn't "do the thinking for you."

Would you be horrified at drug that made heroin addicts not want to do heroin anymore?

Just flip it around: what if there were a drug that made people fat? Is it an insufficient willpower issue then? Willpower works for some, but the drugs make it easier.

I don’t understand why the USA doesn’t just ban processed foods? I know USA only cares about profit but come on. Other countries don’t eat like we do.

Because there's no coherent regulatory framework to "ban processed foods", no country has ever done such a thing, and it would be political suicide to be the party that banned cheeseburgers, french fries, and Coca-Cola.

Obesity is not just a USA problem.