As opposed to random commenters on HN who are likely SWE and not experts in finance or geopolitics?
I hate this trend of "well he's an expert so he might be wrong". Okay, sure, we are all human and make mistakes, but, he's also an expert and you don't become an expert by being wrong all the time. Not sure how many people here are qualified to comment on these events instead of him.
>I hate this trend of "well he's an expert so he might be wrong".
Trotting out an expert who you agree with, to end discussion, is just as bad. You can find reasonable experts on all sides of issues. It's almost always used as a rhetorical technique to shut down debate.
Trotting out an expert is far better than just random comments from uninformed people. I'd just rather say "I have this expert I agree with" vs "I'm a SWE that has no background in this and my opinions are somehow weighted the same" or "this expert is wrong despite the fact that I have no understanding of this subject"
Might be worth considering that some of the people in this conversation are well versed in foreign policy debates and don't need to cite to names to invoke reasonable ideas.
Might be worth to consider that HN commenters clearly are not foreign policy experts and should be citing people that are. Lots of armchair "experts" around here thinking that because they are smart people who work in a stem field, that their opinions should carry any weight. Would you take tech advice from a history professor? No? Then why is it ok to do it for geopolitics?
I hate this trend of "well he's an expert so he might be wrong". Okay, sure, we are all human and make mistakes, but, he's also an expert and you don't become an expert by being wrong all the time. Not sure how many people here are qualified to comment on these events instead of him.