jsoc815's comments

Hmm... flags and more down-votes, but still no counterarguments or questions. (Dang, what's up with that?)

Anyway, here's a September article from Axios entitled, "The Trump administration's secret anti-China plans" https://www.axios.com/trump-administration-anti-china-campai...

From the article: "The broadside against China — which is planned to be both rhetorical and substantive — will be "administration-wide,"" [emphasis added] ""The push is coming from the national security apparatus," the source added."

Personally, I hope no products are compromised, ever. That's probably not the case, and either way, the average person won't care much in the short term. Busy w/other stuff, they probably don't remember this story today, if they even heard about it. Businessweek is, after all, a business magazine targeted at a pretty specific audience.

As for whether Bloomberg's story is part of a wider campaign, I don't know and don't believe I've said otherwise. It doesn't really matter to me, as I know that a game is on and that it isn't unreasonable to use such a story while playing. I've seen and heard all sorts of curious things in the last few years. Nothing about today's environment tells me that I'll have fewer such occurrences.

Toodles, kids.

+1 for the Bernstein ref. Had it mind, but couldn't remember the deets.

Ah! Someone gets it.

Seriously, how is a public SEC investigation going to benefit the "integrity" of the system and "inspire confidence among investors"?

If the story is both fake and some grand market manipulating plot, most people involved are 1) going to hope that the public forgets that this story ever was; and 2) deal w/this privately.

But since some clearly disagree, I eagerly await your well-informed case.

Possibly, but in all likelihood, no.

I know that some people here like to get hung up on literal interpretations and stated missions, but they really shouldn't. (Sorry, can't get into it here.)

For many reasons, there isn't a lot of good that would come from them making a big deal about this among the general public. Feel free to see my earlier post.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18141186

> would most likely be praised for finding it. It is a huge discovery.

Seriously, history, recent and otherwise, is littered w/the ghosts and carcasses of employees who were anything but rewarded for identifying problems great and small.

Oftentimes the safest thing to do is to pretend that one saw/heard/knows nothing while hoping that someone else has the steel to sound the alarm.

And for this sort of situation, there's too much at stake and are too many known and unknown stakeholders involved to blindly believe that this would be an exception to what I wrote above.

On a separate but related note, for those playing the "conspiracy theory" game: - On October 4th, Bloomberg releases The Big Hack story; and - On the same day, VP Pence gives a speech at the Hudson Institute about...? China being a bad actor which indulges in all sorts of behavior (that the United States would never ever engage in or condone).[1]

Factor in the "trade war" and long-ongoing attempts to 'encourage' companies to rethink their supply chains/ relocate production...

[1] https://www.hudson.org/events/1610-vice-president-mike-pence...

> But isn't the IRS knocking in a few years better than the IRS knocking THIS year?

This depends on the penalties that the Service/Treasury aims to collect and their ability to tie-up and/or seize one's assets.

I don't think that such results qualify as unintended consequences. I somehow ended up attending a meeting at Treasury on some existing tax credit program. Other than me, everyone attending seemed to be some sort of insider and nearly everyone seemed to know each other.

So, to my way of thinking, an unintended consequence would be some no-name schmuck being the one to systematize and beat the known quantities at the game. (IMHO)

> Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value

I hope we can both easily agree that law should (almost) never be taken at face value. In my professional experience, the words mean what they mean until they mean something different.

I see some people lack a sense of humor and/or that a 'truth' perhaps cuts too close to the bone.

Au contrair. mon ami. Office workers are busy keeping themselves in the office, which means that the vacation spots, and such are riffraff-free for their betters until the next major holiday break. That's quite useful.

> * Why does anyone in an office put up with it??*

The "prestige" of not being, ahem, blue collar.

But to be fair, there are some things in life from which you and/or one's offspring will/would be locked out if one's money comes from the wrong place(s). That said, this doesn't apply to most people. So, see my initial sentence.

> is it actually good?

While it may be, I found it difficult to get into. I felt like I was reading a long rant that was peppered w/ interesting facts here and there. I put it down years ago with the intent to try again. I've not gotten back to it yet.

A book I recommend that does touch on the S&L scandal is Lying for Money (Dan Davies). The Outlaw Bank (Beaty & Gwynne) was also an awesome read.

As for the greater topic of white collar crime, it's a key ingredient of the cake, forever to be baked in. My professional advise to folks is simply to be aware of that and act accordingly. Can't say much more than that on the matter.

Again, not involved in the selection process but...

What if a candidate's race results in him/her being placed in a 'race' pool? At that point, one's race doesn't help or hurt.

Then once the pools are formed, one starts looking at the #s. I'd wager that lots of European(-Americans)/"Whites" apply. So that pool = competitive.

The Asian(American) pool, lower #s, but higher than the groups not yet mentioned, and thus = competitive.

Probably few "Black" applicants, same w/ "Hispanic", and since Senator Warren is a topic of conversation, absolutely the same w/ "Native Americans." (BTW, I hate using these race terms.)

Then start thinking about who did (didn't apply) and why (self-selecting). Anyway, if we assume that many of the "Asian" applicants are "model minorities" who have been driven by their parents to, well, be model, the Asian pool is going to be ultra-competitive academically. (Wish I knew how to play w/ formatting here, because I want to highlight 'academically'.) So all that happens there, is that they've gone all cut-throat on each other because they're still in the "Asian" pool. Anyway, the argument could then be made that it was simply the numbers and competitiveness of the applicants (which I believe is always stated in the ding letters) that results in getting rejects getting dinged, not their "race".

Anyway, the factors that make different candidates desirable are, as previously stated, 'complex'. But people who want to figure it out can with some digging and quite a bit of logic. These places are not bastions of altruism. They're businesses and extensions of "things". The schools admit the applicants who they think will best serve their purposes. Take a look at the range of characters who have attended their various programs.

As for Affirmative Action, again, people would be wise to do some research. Ira Katznelson has an interesting book on the development and implementation.[1] Admittedly, the title may seem inflammatory so some, but it isn't entirely wrong and was given to him by another "White" guy who's currently at a DC think tank founded by a 'Republican'. It should also be said that there are many "Black" people who would be happy to see AA done away with because it has essentially been used to benefit everyone but them, even though it was written (supposedly) exclusively to benefit African-Americans. But this would be an even longer conversation that then reaches back into how and why "Asians" came to be the "model minority", and whether or not the achievements that another poster mentioned here are actually solely their own, etc. All stuff I'm not really interested in doing here now, or have done a bit of in related past posts.

Anywho, thanks for following up, and all the best.

[1] http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/when-af...

Well done, cwkoss. Well done. That is all.

Even if they are recording everything, there are few people who will want to spend the time watching the recordings. I've been through this a few times in different places. People make up all sorts of excuses for why they can't access the surveillance record(s), that's if they even really have them.

> “a culture where … people more often alter their behavior to suit machines and work with them, rather than the other way around,” and that this tends to erode their sense of “agency.” That is, the constant surveillance of employees diminishes their capacity to operate as independent thinkers and actors.

Isn't this the point? At least until the people can be replaced? Personally, can't wait to see the autonomous robots attempts to subvert the system. That should be interesting.

Sad. His autobiography, a fantastic read, gave me great perspective on business and parenting.

> For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot

Perhaps you're correct, but I don't consider loss of entry a "minor" difference, my friend. That's why I suggest that people do the research and try to be a bit more precise. But yes, I was aware of the fee change.

Also worth noting, since people like to quibble about numbers, that I've consistently heard that the list doesn't actually include everyone who has parted w/their citizenship or green card. So, the true numbers could be anyone's guess.

> I'm... just balancing a math equation.

Fine, but are you sure that you are working on the proper one?

Having followed a number of these threads, I think people understand the admissions process as some simple equation where "high academic achievements" + extracurriculars entitle them to a golden ticket @ Willy Wonka U. That's just not how this game works!

I have no affiliation w/the school, but have been through the game elsewhere and done a bit of research on their (and similar institutions') process. Their addy process is complicated, but not exactly inscrutable.

As has always been the case, the school has an agenda and admits the people it thinks most likely to further it. (A number of books do a pretty good job of spelling this all out. I've mentioned at least one of them in previous posts on this topic and the search engine of one's choosing or a librarian can help the interested find the others.)

The practice(s) in question aren't even specific to "elite" schools." A few months ago I attended an event where a State U president explained why they'd ratcheted down the admits for qualified "Asian" students (who actually would pay full freight to attend). Nothing to do w/ making room for "black" or "hispanic" students. But I guarantee you that his school's rationale is the same as Harvard's, Yale's, etc...

I've pondered posting the recording of the event, but honestly, I never sense that the information would change the conversation(s) here. A lot of the comments here smack of attempts to scapegoat others and assuage bruised egos.

Facts: "Asians" get gamed. "Blacks" get gamed. "Hispanics" get gamed. Btw: people should spend a little asking themselves 'WTF do those quoted terms even mean?' Chances are that your defs aren't the same as those of the addy staff, but I digress.

Respectfully, be smart, folks. This is not an issue to be taken at face value.