spacelamb

I don't disagree, but the former set up AMC to green-light Halt and Catch Fire and the latter resulted in Better Call Saul.

That's correct! Thanks for your comment; I wrote the original to practice logical thinking, and your feedback is helpful for learning.

Paul Graham's assertion that 'parents send their kids to private schools to improve university admission standards' does not guarantee that 'kids from public schools are smarter than kids from private schools.'

Some private schools have high admission standards, and these have better teachers and more motivated students than comparative public schools in the area. The existence of these counter-examples shows that Graham's reasoning doesn't hold. He also assumes that the public school students have studied less material, or easier material, than private school students, and are more motivated to learn. This isn't guaranteed; certain public school programs (like IB, mentioned by another commenter here) meet or exceed the curriculum standards by other private schools. In short, the wording of the Tweets in their current form demonstrate weak reasoning.

However, to take a more charitable interpretation, it's true that other private schools let anyone in who can pay the tuition, while also having less dedicated teachers and unmotivated students compared to public schools (especially public schools with high admission standards). Using more precise language, it can be altered to roughly: "motivated but less-privileged students can outcompete less motivated, more-privileged students in university."

This is a more interesting assertion, but it also depends on the amount of privilege (e.g. some privileged students get an apartment with near-zero commute to the university, lots of cash, the best tutors, etc.). Life isn't truly meritocratic, but you try to do the best you can with the cards you're dealt.

>I feel like this is one of those instances where it feels intuitively correct but probably isn't.

I get this feeling reading a lot of 'insightful' Tweets, especially written by Paul Graham. His essays have been influential and useful, but his Tweets were disappointing (flawed arguments, emotional appeal) to the point where I unfollowed. It's just Twitter, but it does feel like a missed opportunity for a truly insightful feed.

This Tweet is on HN because its founder, Paul Graham, wrote it. I would contend that if anyone else wrote these assertions (even if a celebrity), it wouldn't receive as much engagement.

As a counter-point, I don't see this as worrisome. Your friend who is a public servant sounds professionally and intellectually fulfilled, and far better off and stable than others who've "failed to launch"/have unfulfilled ambitions due to failing to put in the hard work required (not necessarily due to laziness).

I know a couple people (plus myself at one point) who absorbed high-quality entertainment while being professionally unfulfilled. Activities included reading literature, watching artistic films, reading a middle-brow magazines like the New Yorker, and reading lots of New York Times articles. These took a lot of energy and gave a sense of achievement that could've been spent in accumulating career capital/developing career-relevant skills.

This wouldn't imply that entertainment is guaranteed to take away focus and energy from career development (plenty of counter-examples with historical figures), but it is possible for some people. So, I don't see low-quality entertainment as worrisome, so long as people have the main efforts of their life worked on, in tandem. Low-quality entertainment would be a problem, however, if it does distract from time spent on real, helpful work, versus as a stress reliever.

Separately, I would also separate low-quality produced entertainment limited by episodes from social media. They're very different, as social media is better optimized for infinite scrolling and outrage, while shows are more episodic (assuming a weaker, less-optimized pull for binge consumption).

Another anecdote: an undergraduate at a top university I knew, with publications, leadership positions, and strong research experience at the time, was also into reality television, and specifically avoided dramas/prestige television (e.g. Mad Men, Breaking Bad).

In addition to not requiring thinking, I remember he also mentioned that it's harder to get "hooked" and end up binge-watching episodes.

The perspective is plausible to me. I do feel more drained or emotionally spent absorbing intense television series, or even accomplished for understanding them, when I could've spent that on real work. That said, I do think low-quality media affects the way I think and write in a negative way (by contrast, when I spend a lot of time absorbed with high-quality writing, it actually does positively affect my speech and writing for the next few days).

Even shorter for branding: "FaceApp" and "Facebook Rift"

Probably objects that make you imagine about what day-to-day living was like in the past.

If VR becomes widespread, perhaps the first VR headset. Or perhaps niche, quaint items with great craftsmanship (no longer used at all in the future), like a high-quality metal mechanical pencil, fountain pen, or ballpoint pen.

Early commercial spacecraft (SpaceX) would also be a certainty, as the expansion of humanity across space is near-guaranteed (as long as humanity doesn't destroy itself). Perhaps also today's fashion (thinking of fashion museums).

That observation is incorrect (as of November 30, 8:46 pm ET, about two hours after your comment). It doesn't appear in the top five "most read" stories, which are:

1. Moderna chief predicts existing vaccines will struggle with Omicron

2. The inside story of the Pfizer vaccine: ‘a once-in-an-epoch windfall’

3. Powell signals support for quicker ‘taper’ of Fed’s bond-buying scheme

4. Holmes accuses former business partner of abuse in Theranos trial

5. Inditex shares fall after it appoints founder’s daughter as chair

Even if the observation were true, it doesn't contradict my note that the FT omitted it from the front page stories this morning (US edition, FT, iPad app).

However, in the interest of reporting updated information over being 'right,' a new story about Ghislaine Maxwell (published "an hour ago" at the time of this comment) has since been published after my original comment, and now appears on the front page (website and iPad app).

That said, from my observations, it's clear that the Theranos story today was more popular than the Ghislaine Maxwell story, with my inference that it was more widely-promoted. I'm not arguing that there was an effort to suppress reporting, but I am arguing that it's reasonable to conclude that one story may have been marketed more heavily than the other, from seemingly-minor decisions in web design and the stories selected for the mobile apps.

A lot of journalists are financially poor, or at least don't make much income from their jobs. $1000/yr is a lot of money for journalists, especially at local newspapers.

Quite a few accounts I follow also don't have a Blue Check. If it started to cost money, I'm sure a lot of journalists would just choose not to be verified. The reason is that I'm not convinced that a Blue Check is tied to engagement with your Tweets, but rather the quality of your work outside Twitter.

You're correct, though I have to say as someone who reads the Financial Times and The Economist, I haven't seen any headlines today; this is the first time I've heard of the news.

I don't expect conspiracy, though; it's far more likely that the Omicron variant is far more relevant to markets. The FT also did publish two stories on Ghislaine Maxwell about 23-24 hours ago, but it's fair to say that the paper isn't emphasizing the story (by comparison, the Theranos Elizabeth Holmes trial had a story on the front page this morning).