In the case of Herbert Nitsch's accident, he went so deep that even the short bottom time was sufficient to cause DCS on the ascent with just the standard air he was carrying. N2 diffusion is a function of both time spent at depth and the partial pressure of N2 from depth itself, and in his case, time was short but depth was extraordinary. In hindsight, his attempt would have qualified for a deco stop, had he had the lung capacity to do one on the way up.
Indeed, if you're doing extreme free diving, it would make more sense to breathe a more depth-compatible (nitrogen-replaced) mix at the surface before diving, no?
Then your lungs (and blood) would be full of a safer gas mix at depth.
I'm not sure if any of the deeper gas mixes are safe to breathe at surface level though? I think so?
This is also an argument that didn't sit well with me when I heard Guillaume Verdon / Beff Jezos on his recent Lex podcast state that the universe wants to produce more entropy, and that life evolved the way it has because it's more efficient at producing heat and entropy than, say, a rock.
Perhaps he said that loosely as a figure of speech, because it should be obvious (religious beliefs aside) that the universe does not "want" anything. The remaining question is whether the emergence of life as an efficient entropy generator is coincidental to the laws of thermodynamics, or incentivized (in an evolutionary pressure sense) by them.
Yes, this "want" of pop science is annoying. I don't see anything lacking with simply using something like "enables", "allows". An environment with sticks allows evolutionary paths that can use sticks. A world with pools of high energy makes it easier for energy-using systems to develop there as opposed to outside of them. A world with light - go figure - makes it possible for light-using systems to subsist.
>Yes, this "want" of pop science is annoying. I don't see anything lacking with simply using something like "enables", "allows".
This misses the fact that the laws that guide the evolution of the universe are such that its evolution is "aimed towards" increasing entropy. This aim then entails what states are more likely over time, i.e. such states that increase the capacity for increasing entropy. It's not just an incidental fact that entropy increases, but that this trajectory is baked into the laws of nature. But the conceptual dual of an aim is a goal or a "want". So while not literally true, I think using intention terminology is more correct and insightful than leaving out any talk of goal-oriented behavior.
So are the atomic accretions known as humans who have 'wants' part of 'pop science'? Free will? If not, our justice system needs massive reconsideration, an idea with which many people concur but (I would have thought) is unlikely to prevail.
The justice system doesn't really depend on free will. If the threat of punishment deterministicly alters the behavior of society in a productive way, then this justifies it.
Maybe you’ve read this already (I still have it in my stack to read so can’t give any personal review) but ‘Determined’ by Robert Sapolsky sets the argument that we don’t have free will and that the justice system is flawed because of that.
I read the article and I have to say, it's disturbingly compelling. Although I think that while we are unable to demonstrate intricate puppeting of real, conscious humans or something like that, there's some "truth" or "weight" in our thoughts and feelings that are genuine and outside of the typical sphere that free will governs (or, lacking that, fails to govern). Like, even if it could've been predicted with 73% accuracy at birth and 98% by age 25, the fact that someone deeply loves someone else doesn't seem like something to be written off as "this was in your genes and environment". It might still hold true in some sense if full-on mind control is invented, but then you wouldn't know if the feelings are real or fake, meaningful though they feel.
It's true, though, and in fact 30% is a conservative estimate. The percentage of English words that come from French varies from 29% to 45% depending on whether you count derivatives of those words.
What overview? That page repeats a bunch of claims on the basis of nothing, with a big banner at the top of the page warning you that none of the content is supported by any evidence.
The only citation on that page is a dead link to a Canadian university's "about our French program" page, which, while it does claim that 45% of all English words "come from French words" (again, on the basis of nothing), nevertheless manages to contradict the Wikipedia page that cites it by estimating the number at 50,000 rather than Wikipedia's reported 80,000.
Prior to that, in 1992, there was the French COMEX-sponsored HYDRA 10 experiment that saw Théo Mavrostomos dry-dive in a chamber to 701 meters (71.1 bars) - the world's absolute saturation dive depth record. Though that experiment used "only" 20% H2 (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618493-000-technolo...).
Reading that first article freaked the hell out of me, thanks.
Glad there's some people out there nuts enough to push the limits of this stuff. No idea why those people in new zealand don't use pressure suits to dive in that hole though.
I find the controlled ditching hypothesis less psychologically puzzling, not more, for at least three reasons: ego, agency, and practicality.
First, successfully ditching an aircraft at sea is the ultimate test of piloting skills, and possibly one difficult to resist for the ego of a seasoned captain on his final flight.
Second, it seems out of character for a meticulous pilot to just let the aircraft slip out of his control and crash haphazardly at the very end of a carefully-plotted sequence of murderous steps.
Third, a ditching would better obfuscate the final resting place of the aircraft compared to an uncontrolled dive, as it would result in fewer scattered debris floating away.
Fourth, if he had any last minute regrets about offing himself (which he had hours to contemplate), it would probably be practically reflexive to keep the plane aloft as long as possible and ditch it as smoothly as possible.
Not trying to evangelize you, but you may not necessarily see the value in gathering random notable ideas somewhere until you put in the effort of documenting them and then see the network effect in action, i.e., new meta-ideas and patterns emerging from linking those ideas in a central location.
> may not necessarily see the value in gathering random notable ideas somewhere until you put in the effort of documenting them and then see the network effect in action
or it could be that correlation doesnt imply causation.
People who have lots of ideas might just generally be better at ideation, have high intelligence, and perhaps also good at evaluating their ideas quickly. Their success is not _due_ to their jotting down of ideas, but that there is a confounding factor that influence both.
People who would copy the actions of successful people may just be cargo culting.
Tried your website on Chrome 108.0.5359.125 (Win 64-bit), and it displayed nothing but a teal background, until I turned off the Decentraleyes 2.0.17 extension (which was reporting and blocking 542 locally-injected resources). FYI.
Born and raised in Monaco here. The article paints a very incomplete picture, told from the minority standpoint of mostly wealthy socialites and residents. There are also about 50K people commuting into Monaco daily from neighboring cities (Nice, Cannes, La Turbie, Beausoleil, etc.) who are just middle-class wage workers, and who form the bulk of Monaco's active population. In the daytime, Monaco is mostly alive from their presence, as they outnumber residents. At night, well, Monaco isn't very much alive at all.
Many if not most of the wealthy residents who can afford the insane real estate prices also own multiple properties worldwide (London, NYC, Lugano, Singapore, etc.), and shuttle between them all year round, so they aren't even there permanently. Monaco is only a fiscal residence for many of them.
Beyond the surface-level glitz, e.g. the Formula 1 and the fancy cars parked in front of the Casino, what's interesting is that the little old unassuming lady in sweatpants walking her dog in the morning may actually be a multi-billionaire, and you wouldn't be able to tell. Lot of old money that likes to keep to itself, as opposed to nouveaux riches who like to flaunt.
This is analogous to Singapore, with a huge army of workers resident in Malaysia crossing over every day, and most returning every night. Hong Kong is somewhat similar but less so: there is enough cheap housing for a significant proportion of the cheaper labour (below millionaire class) to live in the economies boundaries.
The article does make it clear that Monegasques have significant state support for housing but that's on the assumption they aren't millionaires. The mobile workforce from outside is presumably given one of two "perks" -lower taxation outcomes (although I suspect there is some bilateral tax treaty) for at least income tax, and higher pay than they'd get working in their domicile.
I'm trying to steer clear of approval or disapproval writing this. I can't imagine making either of the two choices: to be a tax exile living there but with no statehood, or to be a mobile worker working there but having to return to an EU economy every night. The third option, being Monegasque is not open to me any more than Maltese citizenship, which is also much sought, and hard to get although not as hard as this one.
A surprising number of british working class people have Maltese citizenship, similarly Gibraltarian: thats what the british Navy does for you. I wonder if in millionaires row their advice for non-dom includes "marry a maltese"
Most Monegasques are by and large not millionaires, but they are indeed taken care of by the welfare state very very well. However, they barely make up 25% of the residents, so they are overshadowed by the wealthier foreigners who set up residence in Monaco.
Re: the mobile workforce, there's a tax treaty between Monaco and France (which was imposed by the latter after a total blockade of the former in the 1960s) by which French citizens working in Monaco still have to pay income tax in France, even if they are Monaco residents. It's the only case of "global taxation" of French expatriates in the world. There are, therefore, no incentives for them to live in Monaco. People who set up fiscal residence in Monaco to avoid taxes are, therefore, not French.
> by which French citizens working in Monaco still have to pay income tax in France, even if they are Monaco residents. It's the only case of "global taxation" of French expatriates in the world. There are, therefore, no incentives for them to live in Monaco
Ha, it's amazing how fast and efficient the French government can be at blocking these legal loopholes so that the handful of workers working in Monaco couldn't avoid paying French taxes anymore, when many publicly listed French corporations like Airbus, ST Microelectronics, Balenciaga, etc. have their financial residence in the Netherlands depriving the French state of billions in taxes for decades and nobody bats an eye, but if a few ordinary people do it then there's hell to pay.
It's almost as if there's an agenda for a double standard here, where the system is rigged against the peasantry and for the benefit of wealthy elites. Maybe those guillotines have been gathering dust for too long now.
> Ha, it's amazing how fast and efficient the French government can be at blocking these legal loopholes so that the handful of workers working in Monaco couldn't avoid paying French taxes anymore, when many publicly listed French corporations like Airbus, ST Microelectronics, Balenciaga, etc. have their financial residence in the Netherlands depriving the French state of billions in taxes for decades and nobody bats an eye, but if a few ordinary people do it then there's hell to pay.
Well, even if the current governments had the same policies as 60's France, they probably couldn't act because the Netherlands are in the EU and there are already laws to govern these things, that are not easily changed because they involve 27 countries.
Monaco on the other hand is just one little non-EU country that is nominally independent but in reality utterly dependent on France (and indeed, only independent as long as France tolerates it). So it's much easier to pressure.
Based on colleagues working in Monaco (both locals and commuters), it was not a friendly agreement at all (since Monaco is just losing) - it was basically give us all your French banking / employment data or we will fucking invade you with army and end your little kingdom for good.
French were/are not some nice baguette eating and coffee sipping polite 'bonjour monsieur' artists that visiting Paris as tourist may make you believe, rather colonialists to the core (at least people in government with actual power).
And yes French treatment of even modestly wealthy is straight out of communist guidebook - vilify, tax to hell, make up laws that even break european treaties but ignore european courts rulings on those, blame on rich all mismanagement of vast (not only social) state wealth on population deemed lazy even by french citizens themselves (I have tons of french colleagues and none hired french workers when doing some home reconstruction and they were clear why).
There are various protections in Monaco for local populations, companies have quotas on minimum mandatory hires from local population, so sometimes clueless people are hired to just sit on chair to get the numbers going, earning massive salaries (for France and western Europe at least). But its still well worth for the companies (mostly banks), some scenes are pretty surreal - 90+ senile guy barely coherent coming to the bank branch, accompanied by few 20-something models, taking literally full shopping bag worth of cash and heading right back to casino or yacht for next party. Definitely old rich money's place, overranked in my opinion but its mainly tax haven so thats not relevant.
I am French, by the way. I'm more or less aware of "what the French are", of how the blockade of Monaco happened, as well as of the "communist hell" that is the country -- it's not communist hell and I wish the country where I live (in the EU) was both as business friendly and as supportive of its poor as France is. I was also taxed less in France, but that's probably because I don't take advantage of the innumerable tax deduction and loopholes available here that are little more than disguised tax breaks for the rich.
Based on your comment I'd say you're working in the banking sector in Geneva. Just be aware that your French colleagues are extremely biased.
Come on, it’s Monaco we are talking about. It’s a small island visible from the cost of France, dependents on it for absolutely everything - food, energy, water, transport, defence - and surviving as a tax haven for the ultra wealthy. It’s not colonialism. The fact that it remains independent to this day is an insult to tax paying French citizen.
It wouldn’t even be a colony. It’s literally part of the land. It’s been going around being more or less independent since 1400 and was part of France a mere 200 years ago. And to be fair 90% of what was independent willingly joined France years ago. What remains is an insignificant piece of rock which doesn’t really have its own culture and is only allowed to stay this way because French residents pay taxes in France and the foreigners who use it as tax haven are powerful. It’s nearly as shameful as the Virgin British Islands.
There are lots of French residents who work in Switzerland, based on the length of the border I'd hazard to guess a much larger number than Monaco. In the case of these, they are taxed in Switzerland, not in France, saving them a LOT of money.
I've always wondered how that worked, because in Switzerland you are taxed based on the area you live, not the location of the company you work for.
I'ts complex: depending on the Swiss state you're working in the rules are different, then with COVID a layer of complexity has been added, with work-from-home exemptions being negotiated on what percentage of work-from-home-in-France can make your Swiss income a French income...
My impression is that living and working across an international border is putting your life in a quite convoluted financial and personal structured-derivative of many factors: politics, exchange-rates, social...
Each cantons with a border with France have their own bilateral agreements. In most cases, income tax is payed in the country of residence but in Geneva in particular, income tax is paid locally. The party that collect the taxes is supposed to send back a part of it to the other party according to the agreements in place but there is lots of drama around the amounts owned.
French residents are most likely still paying income tax in France (and in Switzerland too), as France most likely has a bilateral tax agreement with Switzerland. They are also taxed according to where their company (or their main place of work) is located. French citizens living in Switzerland only pay taxes in Switzerland.
Airbus is not a French company since 2014, when it was transformed into Airbus Group SE (Societas Europaea). The French state pushed for this, as well as for European trade and movement of capital, which made possible the capital flight to lower tax jurisdictions like the Netherlands.
"Each citizen must go under the blade. As the blade is released, your financial and social history are reviewed by our mostly-reliable mostly-fair A.I. for the possibility of pardon."
> The third option, being Monegasque is not open to me any more than Maltese citizenship, which is also much sought, and hard to get although not as hard as this one.
Doesn't Malta have a "golden passport" programme of citizenship through investment, where you can get a passport by investing less than $1,000,000 and moving to Malta for three years, virtually no questions asked? [0]
This contrasts strongly with Monaco where even the billionaire residents find it extremely tough to get citizenship.
>Doesn't Malta have a "golden passport" programme of citizenship through investment, where you can get a passport by investing less than $1,000,000 and moving to Malta for three years, virtually no questions asked? [0]
Not at all. This program is now extremely difficult and far from "no questions asked".
>or to be a mobile worker working there but having to return to an EU economy every night.
Monaco is so small and so similar to neighbouring France so it does not make much difference versus having to commute to another neighbouring town. It just so happens that this neighbouring town is also another country.
I visited Monaco several times on a sailboat (I believe it is the cheapest way to spend a night there). The town is very small and well connected by public transportation, so "having to return to an EU every night" is about the same as working on Manhattan while live in Brooklin, Bronx or Jersey.
I’ve always wondered: How do billionaires ensure their security?
Does this old lady have no security detail at all? Are they as prone as us to street-mugging?
Do people like usual unicorn CEOs, I know some who have street-facing houses or houses without a big fence (they don’t live in gated communities), have armed guys to protect against intruders? Do they walk their dog at night? let their kids walk to school in the morning? Do they have security detail for all this, or are they just like us, crossing their fingers that crime be low? Being CEOs with large interests at stake, they surely receive targeted blackmailing in large quantity, don’t they? Even as billionaires, do they simply take the first Uber from their airport to a downtown hotel? Do they simply assume airport-uber-hotel facilities are naturally safe, even considering how much interest they concentrate on their person?
I think it depends on the country and the viability of any sort of attack on the person as an enterprise likely to produce profit.
In countries known for their lawlessness, perhaps Brazil for example, or Papua New Guinea, HNW people do indeed have security details and live in pretty fortified areas (whole districts, typically, not just houses). A visiting CEO or whoever, depending on how well-known they are and how publicly knowable their visit is likely to be, might well organise such protection when they visit. Countries like this, all countries actually, have companies specialising in exactly that.
But I think in countries where there is a credible claim to rule of law, attacks on the actual person are pretty rare. Kidnapping as a general crime is all but extinct in most of the developed world, and you'd have to kidnap someone to make any actual money - it's not like they have a billion dollars in cash on their person. You'd have to kidnap for ransom (or I suppose crypto keys these days?) which is just extraordinarily risky and unlikely to succeed in the modern, developed world.
As to the "uber from the airport" question, anyone above a certain net worth has at least one assistant who organises their calendar and travel (and their whole lives, actually) and they will have arranged transport to/from airports in advance.
To give an example of this, I live in Hong Kong and I've seen people park their very expensive lamborghini, ferrari and mclaren and just go to a small completely unassuming restaurant. I'm always curious so I google the car make I see and some were valued over a million usd. So at least high net worth individuals (not the extremes) feel safe in this city.
Yes and a murder in Luk yu tea house. This doesn't stop high net worth from feeling rather safe. The extremes like the billionaire tycoons are a different matter and I've seen Richard Li come in a restaurant I was eating with his entire retinue of body guards.
Monaco is incredibly safe - undercover and uniformed police everywhere, ubiquitous video surveillance, few ingress/egress points, thorough filtering of cars coming in and out based on condition and license plate, etc. It’s a small territory and thus easy to monitor.
...and practically speaking, it is really hard to get in and out of Monaco (there are only a few roads in and out and traffic moves slowly) and everywhere is covered by cameras. Anyone who tried a street robbery likely wouldn't make it very far at all.
This isn't a problem in a lot of areas. Believe it or not, some places are fairly safe. If you live in a safer area, why would you bother paying for security, especially if no one realizes that you might be worth getting mugged?
I think it depends on the level of fame. Zuckerberg/Gates/Buffet/Musk all have bodyguards. Pretty sure I could walk past EG the Coinbase or AirBnB founders and not recognise them.
I saw benioff crossing the street in San Fran once. Heh it looked like that painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. My CEO was with me at the time and in awe, I was laughing so hard I had to stop walking.
Rich people love to distinguish between old and new rich. Am I supposed to somehow be impressed by this? Old rich just use their money for pleasure and status like new rich do, they just have different more obtuse ways to do it.
I think there are implications or reasons i see this… (this is not an endorsement)
1. “New rich” is flashy and gaudy and that’s not perceived as a positive. Flaunting wealth is seen as trying to show off for the admiration/approval/jealousy of the less rich. Being old rich is to be above it, and so comfortable with money you don’t need to show it off.
2. “Old Rich” is a separate world, it’s like royalty, no amount of success today makes you old rich yesterday. Since having the right connections is an important factor in success, it’s another way to close doors for everyone but your kids.
3. I think there’s a certain “aesthetic” that old-money is associated with (enjoyed by the not rich). A quasi-royal preppy guilded sort of image, and people seem to like that.
1. old money is afraid to spend frivolously because (a) they are embarrassed because they know they didn't earn it themselves and (b) they don't believe they could make it on their own if they had to. Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.
2. because old money is the opposite of meritocratic (inheritance based) they have to come up with all kinds of gatekeeping strategies to maximize the advantage of their social position.
3. social rules that keep the old monied themselves in check, to slow down the inevitable reversion to the mean.
>Also, old money shamelessly flaunts their wealth. Hospital naming rights, charity events, art collections, etc.
I think charity type stuff is seen a bit different than flashy ridiculously expensive cars and such.
It's a way that might be seen as showing off but is not perceived as badly and so less likely to get you noticed in a less desirable way.
Similarly those art collections unless lent/donated don't leave the estate and are hardly flashy
Of course it's perceived differently, that's the entire point! A $2000 Brunello Cucinelli sweater is conspicuous consumption just like an oversized Gucci belt.
And the art world is small. People know who the collectors are.
The difference is that every joe blow knows what Gucci looks like but only certain people, if any, can spot a sweater like that. You are signalling to completely different groups. Honestly I'd be surprised if anyone outside diehard fashion "experts" could spot a subdued Brunello sweater at all so the intent there is not to signal at all.
New rich can sometimes be a middle finger to the old rich.
I'm thinking of some Hiphop stars.
Over the top behaviour, perhaps, but I'll always respect that more than the old rich dripping in the unearned benefits of their generational wealth, connections and status worship. But I'm not bitter.
But new rich means people are closer to the source of wealth. Someone who built a successful business is more admirable than someone who never worked, but their ancestors were very wealthy.
Oh come on, it’s easy. Firstly, everyone kinda wishes they won the lottery, intense wealth sounds fun.
I don’t bootlick billionaires and I generally consider wealth inequality a major societal failure, but I can recognize that someone who built immense wealth usually worked hard (and got very lucky!), and potentially possessed some entrepreneurial skill I lack. I also admire musicians because I have no musical ability, and I admire athletes because I have no athletic ability.
What is “character” good for if not helping society in some way? For the most useful ways you could help society, you end up getting paid. So while making money != character, there’s a correlation.
While I believe that I mostly understand the distinction between Old Rich and New Rich (myself being neither of them), I wonder where individuals such as Warren Buffett fall in the social distinction. While it's obvious that in practice he's "new rich" in terms of family timeline, he is famously quite the opposite of the showy New Rich stereotypes. Furthermore, I'm sure there are countless more like him (though not quite so rich) that are virtually unknown precisely because they are so restrained and discreet about their wealth.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm curious as to how the Old Rich feel towards these non-New-Rich-but-newly-rich types. Are they still considered part of the New Rich riff-raff even if they do happen to be more sensible with their money? Or are they seen as honorary Old Rich out of respect? Or something else?
Hopefully some Old Rich HN commenter (we know you're there!) can give me some insight.
You've got two bell curves that mostly overlap and a bunch of upper middle class know-it-alls who are trying to say profound things about the nature of the irrelevent little valley between the two summits.
None of this crap really matters. There's plenty of old money types who spend on flamboyant crap and plenty of new money types who don't and trying to generalize based on how many generations they've had money is beyond a fool's errand.
Buffet's diet consists of coca-cola and hamburgers, and every year he throws a massive self-promotion and sales event in Omaha that lasts multiple days. By old money standards it's vulgar.
It’s legitimate. He doesn’t even own McDonalds but every day would get bacon, egg, and cheese biscuit for $3.17. It’s a comfortable, new money thing. You grow up on these things and a lot of the times it ends up being a familiar routine. Gates is the same way with burgers. God knows I’d still doing the same thing past a billionaire.
‘Rich’ is a relative term but my family might qualify as ‘old rich’ and do tend to distinguish from ‘new rich’. The terms are misnomers. People who might be labelled ‘new rich’ or ‘nouveau riche’ do not have the qualities of tastes, behaviours, or values that are handed down and refined over many generations. It is a relatively easy-to-observe distinction.
I am not saying it’s an important distinction to me.
This makes sense, and sounds reasonable. I think people are getting hung up on 'qualities of tastes', believing (I assume) it is a value judgement. I read it as 'characteristics'.
As a result of proximity over time, the 'old rich' have developed unique cultural habits that are easily recognized as different to 'new rich'. Every group does this. Sure, there is good and bad to it, but it's a natural and expected outcome.
It's a term made up to embarrass newcomers. Cultural differences are not right or wrong, they just are.
To say someone has the wrong 'qualities of tastes, behaviors or values' is arrogance. Everybody's culture is handed down, that's another weasel-phrase that just disguises bigotry.
It’s a poor term but one that simply refers to observable differences. It is unfortunate that there may be bigory or judgements accorded. I am inclined to suppose that those people are in the minority.
> People who might be labelled ‘new rich’ or ‘nouveau riche’ do not have the qualities of tastes, behaviours, or values that are handed down and refined over many generations
>"I think there’s a certain “aesthetic” that old-money is associated with (enjoyed by the not rich). A quasi-royal preppy guilded sort of image, and people seem to like that."
Middle class people putting old money on a pedestal and denigrating new money is so laughable to me.
The folks that do nothing but own land and raise your rent every year are oh so classy, and the folks that actually work invent things that improve your life like idk wifi are oh so gauche.
I once read somewhere that the issue is that to the old rich money isn't a topic. It's something that exists and has existed for a long time, that gets used when needed, but doesn't get talked about.
New rich on the other hand feel the need to display the fact that "they've made it", talking about money is important to them.
So there's a certain incompatibility between old and new rich, where old rich feel bothered by the talk about money.
I think in general money isn't a topic amongst the rich. Yes, there are exceptions, but in general it's a very boring thing to talk about once you reach a certain level.
I personally think of it as a pure human need to somehow feel superior to their peers. Sure, they have the same amount of money, but are how did they get them and can we make their status lower ( and at the same time ours higher ) by pointing to that. The in-group/out-group dynamic is at play for everyone including apparently people, who have a lot of money. If I was a more charitable person, I would say that is a good thing. It means they are still connected to the human race.
Note. By rich here I am talking upwards of 100MM although it would appear B would soon be replacing M as the place to be money-wise in terms of wealth recognition.
I think the implication is that “old money” has aristocratic roots and thus, “noble blood”. Just plain old chauvinism and bigotry, but now applied to billionaires too.
Quite the opposite. A Carnegie whose money comes from developing the American steel industry, or a Hershey whose money comes from chocolate, or the heirs of countless founders of companies that make real stuff, seems much more ethical than people today who make their money from one of the various heads of the advertising or finance hydras.
Stuff like that had negative localized effects, but the ad industry that fuels large segments of tech has negative effects across a much broader swath of the population and economy.
You're trolling here, right? It is not actually your position that it is more ethical to be a steel baron who orders the shooting death of striking workers than it is to be an adtech CEO, right?
Carnegie never ordered deaths of striking workers nor do I think you can make a defensible case that in general steel magnates do. Mining business is difficult and laborers in that industry sure do go through a lot; ore smelting laborers report having respiratory illnesses indeed quite regularly so I agree that steel barons are not completely inculpable if analyzed through an ethics lens.
But looking over the fact that the advertising industry is fundamentally about the exploitation of cognitive biases in order to convince folks to buy things that more often than that they do not need just betrays a certain naïveté of what's going on out there.
Violent suppression of labor organizing is a prominent part of American history. Read, for instance, Rick Perlstein's "Before The Storm" about what happened at the Kohler factory in Sheboygan, more recently than the steel strike we're talking about here.
> You should google the Pittsburgh steel strikes and Henry Frick.
You mean the guy who survived an assassination attempt by labor activists, who were running a totally illegal blockade of his business? And it’s not even like the laws have changed about it since then, their blockade strike would be totally illegal today as well.
> And it’s not even like the laws have changed about it since then
Let me know if it's still legal to have your workers work with highly dangerous machinery for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (for wages that would be comparable to federal minimum wage today ~ although it's hard to find a good inflation calculator that tracks back to the 1880s).
I'm sure that's totally comparable to the plight that Google/FB/Amzn employees have to put up with.
Obviously I admire what he did with the Gospel of Wealth & his philanthropy, but that doesn't excuse his horrible treatment of workers.
Honestly, it's just so astonishing that you can even argue in support of Henry Frick.
You should read up about the Johnstown FLood and the failure of the South Fork Dam.
I feel like the HN crowd just skims the wikipedia bio and uses that to craft a hilariously terrible argument.
If they didn’t like the working condition, they could have striked or left, that’s not the point. What they did in fact do was to use violence to block people who did like these working condition and specifically came there to work there in their place, when they striked. Oh, and they tried to kill Frick too, don’t forget that.
I am not so much arguing in support of Frick but rather against a completely dishonest narrative where he is villainized for “shooting workers”, while completely omitting the details as to what events led to that situation.
I suspect that this is why end up repeating history in one form or another over and over again. Stuff happens, we learn some lessons, we forget about the stuff (or our institutional memory does) and then we forget the lessons setting the stage for stuff to happen again. Frustrating business, more so to see it happening on such a short timescale. If it was something that the Romans did I could get why it isn't remembered as acutely but this is recent history and even far outside the country where it happened this - used to be - is common knowledge.
I went to Monaco on my honeymoon(one of a few places I visited). A few things the article does not mention are that the local residents cannot gamble at the cities casino. I believe that the casino is one of the largest sources of revenue for the city state. The aquarium and palace are very nice and the palace in particular has alot of history and continuing tradition. Was shocked at the number of luxury cars that were in our parking garage(we drove in), like at least 20-30 Ferraris, Rolls Royce and Bentleys in the garage we parked at. Having grown up in the sf bay area which is very wealthy, the level of wealth here was amazing even to me. I know the country is desperately trying to add more land, this means building out into the sea and building up(high rises). The city state is on a somewhat hilly area which further restricts available building areas. Overall it was a great trip and the people were all friendly and it seemed very safe, lastly I really enjoyed the beer Brasserie de Monaco pilsner(locally brewed).
>the local residents cannot gamble at the cities casino.
Sounds like Las Vegas. I don't mean to say that Vegas residents are prohibited from gambling; they aren't. There certainly are gamblers among them, both natives[1] and those who moved specifically there to gamble. But to the vast majority of Las Vegas residents the casinos are a) employers and b) a place to take out-of-town guests to for an inexpensive meal.
[1] By which I mean "regular people". Newcomers greatly outnumber those actually native to the city.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I heard that for Monaco nationals, housing is heavily subsidized. Otherwise they simply wouldn't be able to live in their own country!
I personally know a Monaco national. Typical middle-class lifestyle, maybe he secretly has a fortune be he doesn't look like it. Interestingly, despite living effectively in France, he is not French, he is not even a EU citizen, it means that when he went to study in France, he had to do more paperwork than someone from, say, Germany.
And BTW, while I didn't live in Monaco, I went there a few times (2h drive from where I live) and it definitely feels the way you describe it.
They could have added Jackson Hole, Wyoming to the list and it would seem equally strange. Kind of a small town with billionaires that you don't really know about unless you've either been there or read specifically about it.
In Canada I'm not aware of any rich people small towns (unless you consider Vancouver, West Vancouver, or Toronto, or the Shaunhessy neighbourhood of Vancouver), but there is the Muskoka area of Ontario where Kevin O'Leary's wife recently smashed her boat into and killed someone
Plus all the multi-millionaires from nearby Northern Italy (one of the most industrialised regions in Europe until quite recently, and still one of the wealthiest) hiding their wealth in there. Them and Mina, the famous singer [1].
