For what it's worth, I don't know a single person that thinks this is a good idea. However, I'm a software developer living in NYC, so the context of my socioeconomic/cultural bubble isn't representative of the average American's.
A few folks have already posted good points. This is a classic Trump/asshole negotiation tactic. This distracts from the clamor to release the Epstein files.
But what I think is pretty depressing to me is that, as someone else posted, lots of people (even the ones I personally know who don't like Trump) are just so sick of politics and inured against all this madness that they prefer to think about other things. There's also a feeling of helplessness, as it's true that there's not much that an individual can do to affect immediate, meaningful change. My best friend and I went door knocking in PA in 2024 to try to turn out votes for Kamala Harris. He was super passionate about politics. Since then he's shrugged and has literally said to me, "Well, we tried. Let's just focus on our own individual lives." When I try to bring this topic up with other folks, including my best friend, I often get a - "Well they voted for this. Our live are still good. Let them suffer." And when tariffs and other international relations, such as Greenland come up, most people I know tend to just shrug and don't have much to say.
It's a really strange and interesting phenomenon I've observed. Since I strongly believe that smart phone and social media addiction have deranged most individuals, I of course have a bias to think that most people are a mixture of easily distracted by this very distressful situation and psychologically uncomfortable with the aforementioned feeling of not being able to do anything with an immediate result, i.e. no instant gratification that we've been conditioned to expect. But then I read books about history, and it seems like this behavioral pattern isn't unique to this smart phone era, so maybe it's just human nature. Most people probably don't believe in an abstract principle strongly enough to really sacrifice or even be that uncomfortable about it. I'd like to think this isn't the case, so I've tried to modulate my conversations to pleading with people I know (again, most of whom are against Trump and all this), to at least have a conversation where we can agree this sucks. But then, it's another maddening thing, where a lot of folks have told me - That's obvious, why do we need to talk about it.
Regardless - I can only speak for myself when I say that I am wholly, 100%, and passionately against this. I'm just guessing, but I suspect that your confusion on why there's no strong movement against this stems from a large-scale prisoner's dilemma (most individuals here are optimizing for their own local maxima, which leads to our collective minima), and the distressing phenomenon that most humans probably don't like to just be assholes, they try to follow the rules and norms of society, but we have here an asshole who doesn't, so it's difficult to combat him and this administration.
Sigh. Sorry for the long post. Maybe it helps. I don't know, it's a strange time. Even taking the time to at least explain what I've personally witnessed is only my attempt to try to put out the right karma in the universe against this anti-intellectual, indecent behavior.
No need to apologize, quite the opposite. This is exactly the kind of insight I was hoping for. I read the NYT and other U.S. papers and get the editorial perspective, but I still feel, and many here in Scandinavia feel the same, that we can’t fully understand what’s going on at the level of everyday experience in the U.S. That’s why your ‘street‑level analysis’ is valuable and much appreciated.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I feel for you and understand (though disagree with) the nihilism of your friends. As an outsider, it saddens me to bear witness to the beginning of the sunset of the American epoch. What a bold, noble experiment the USA was!
I think the feeling of helplessness is reasonable.. Maybe they see how much more they have to sacrifice a lot more to fight this tyranny of stupidity. Only when the population has lost a lot more will they get mad enough to say "well we've lost too much" (if you see how protests go big in other oppressive regimes - the famous quote is "civilization is 3 missed meals away from riots").
Maybe it's all the Nazi thuggery of ICE scaring them, that keeping quiet feels much more safer.
Dilbert was great, and one of my favorite comics for a long long time. But yeah. Adams turned out to be kinda a jerk, at best. Of late, I've kinda concluded that no single piece of art or single artist is so great that I can't live a full life without it, regardless of how much I love said work or artist. I think individuals should have the right to read and enjoy Dilbert, but I also think if you don't like him and can't let that go, don't give your limited time and attention to the comic. There are lots of other great comics out there!
I think he literally said white people should stay away from black people.
I forget which video it is and don't want to re-watch it anyways. I Googled the specific quote and it sounds about right with my memory (which admittedly could be faulty):
"I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people."
"Just get the f— away. Wherever you have to go, just get away".
I guess we could discuss whether this is straight up racist, but it sounds pretty bad to me.
FWIW - I don't 100% agree with you, but I did want to say thanks for at least posting your thoughts, and qualifying them.
(Adding my comment since there's a good amount of pushback, most of which I roughly agree with, but I think it's important to say thanks for maintaining a civil dialogue and discussion where we don't see 100% eye-to-eye. This also goes for all those who are replying to you as well. It's great to have civil discourse.)
It hasn't 100% worked for me, but it's been progress for me to:
- turn on grayscale
- don't use any social media
- turn off all recommendations for the two indulgences I do have (YouTube, Reddit)
The no recommendations has been especially helpful because I only have my subscription feed, and I can curate that.
As far as news goes - Economist is a good one imo. Weekly news is a fast enough cadence that also filters out noise and nonsense from the knee-jerk, instant reaction news cycles. I've also found the New Yorker to be pretty great, since their pieces are so long that they're usually about events that happened weeks to months ago.
But +1 to others' comments: maybe you don't need to know everything, either. Reading books about history, even recent history, has been a great way for me to fulfill my need to understand our society.
Despite all that I've typed above, if you really want to get regular news consumption, I highly highly recommend Heather Cox Richardson. She distills the daily news and often adds historical context.
I can't speak for firmretention, but I'm guessing it's the idea of a billionaire who's rightly lauded for his investment skill getting a little greenwashed with "donations" that aren't really no-strings-attached donations. It's also a little dystopian to have a dorm described as:
> “Munger Hall, in comparison, is a single block housing 4,500 students with two entrances,” McFadden said, and would qualify as the eighth densest neighborhood on the planet, falling just short of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
It is a good idea, but I am curious whether it's a fire hazard to have only two entrances for such a big and dense building? Maybe this is misreported, I don't know.
In general, though, I personally do think that donating money and micromanaging how that money is spent does come off weird and disingenuous. You have every right to do it, but it's not really in the spirit of a pure donation to me at that point.
Again, I can't speak for firmretention. Their comment just tickled this own natural reaction I had in myself to the linked article.
I used to be pretty into junk bonds during my MBA (I don't do this at all professionally, so YMMV with my commentary here), and I think, as usual, a lot of context would help with understanding what this could mean, which ajross described. In the most simple terms, as other have also mentioned, it's basically non-investment grade companies (and there are a lot of em - you'd be surprised at the names on the list) now have to pay more for money. This could mean that investors are worried and want more compensation for risk, which means that the reality of the economy is shakier. OTOH, it could mean that investors are being more realistic, and not letting risky companies just have cheaper money to make value destructive decisions could be a good sign of sanity in the markets, and thus (in theory) the economy. It's hard to know with a simple headline or article. Even if you dig into all the numbers and do all the reading, it's still hard to know since the world is really complex.
I look at this as a single data point amongst many re: how I end up assessing my feelings about the economy. Truth be told, I'm probably more concerned about what lots of news outlets are discussing - all the AI capex spend. Apparently there's more financing being negotiated with fewer restrictions on the debt, which tends to be a really bad sign of a bubble.
All that said, my slightly informed mildly-hysterical opinion is that aggregate downside risk is absolutely out of control in the markets right now. Valuations of basically everything are at all time highs relative to production. Volatilities are high. And non-economic risks are off the charts.
Basically, everyone is placing too many bets. AI stocks are bets, sure. VCs have too much money in play. Datacenter spending is a giant bet.
But the Trump administration is also placing bets on world trade markets, expecting to win the trade wars it keeps provoking. Likewise it's betting on US labor stability with mass deportations, and now para-sorta-maybe-martial-law decrees. I mean, let's be honest: the risk of a general strike in the USA is probably higher now than at any point in the last century.
Oh, and Russia seems about to hit a tipping point in its refining capacity, which says dark things about Europe too if that goes awry.
Basically most of these look "not really that scary" from a fundamentals perspective. But what are the chances we make it through the next 9-12 months with none of them having gone sour? And any of them could be the trigger for a real market crash!
I'm moving almost everything out of volatiles, personally. The loss of the next 10-20% of upside seems like a good bet vs. what-maybe-50%-or-more downside.
To late to edit it in, but you'll note in my doomeration of downside risks I completely forgot that the government is shutdown! Things are messed up enough that I can't even remember why they're messed up!
As a longtime loyal subscriber to Stratechery... I kinda agree. But as the other commenters did point out, this does reflect how the market seems to feel about OpenAI, at least. (Meta - I'm less sure of; Thompson does fawn over Meta quite a bit, I personally think it's too much and seems to not fully reflect reality, but man do they really cane it when you see their usage numbers, so maybe he's right.)
I did think his GPT-5 commentary was good, insofar as picking up the nuance of why it's actually better than the immediate reactions I, at least, saw in the headlines.
Where I do agree with you is how Stratechery's getting a little oversaturated. I'm happy Ben Thompson is building a mini media empire, but I might have liked it more when it was just a simple newsletter that I got in my inbox, rather than pods, YouTube videos, and expanding to include other tech/news doyens. Maybe I'm just a tech media hipster lol.
This is true. It's interesting to see the incentives of the industry though - this business model was less evenly distributed, but given how tough it is to make money in games, more companies are doing this.
reply