Even worse, how easily could you prove it was happening at all? If done correctly it wouldn't be obvious and it isn't likely to be reliably repeatable since AI loves to give different output to the same input.
Cultural thing or…selection bias. The people who left were the ones with the personality and work ethic that leads to being successful.
Historically, people who have left China are from Guangdong and mostly the poor & uneducated people. So the Chinese people you see in the US, west, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc. are mostly from Guangdong.
Read up on Chinese migration from Guangdong during the US gold rush and railways and why they left.
Eventually, Chinese people in nearly all countries rise to the top of the income/wealth chart. For example, the richest group of people in Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia are all descendants of Guangdong people who migrated. In Indonesia for example, Chinese are 1-2% of the population but owns 70% of private wealth.
Fun fact, most Chinese people in China do not eat dim sum. Dim sum is a cuisine popularized by Guangdong (Guangzhou/Hong Kong area). There are also many regions in China that don't even eat rice. They eat bread or noodles mostly. Chinese image outside of China are heavily influenced by a small area in Guangdong due to immigration.
Small correction, a significant amount of Chinese migrants are from Fujian, which borders Guangdong. You can usually tell from the language spoken—Fujian descendants speak Hokkien while Guangdong descendants speak Cantonese, though it's not a hard rule with the regions being adjacent, of course.
In countries like Malaysia, it seems to be an even mix of both but in others like Philippines 90% are actually from Fujian.
That does not explain why other similar communities haven't done as well, even though more of their people have migrated.
Take the example of Britain, where they currently have a larger ethnic British Pakistani population than the British Indian population. Yet there are only 25% Indian households and 33% Chinese households in the bottom income quintile, while there are 44% Pakistani households and 49% Bangladeshi households in the same (White British is at 17%). On the other hand, Indians and Chinese are massively represented in the top income quintile at 20% and 28% of households (compared to White British at 21%). Only 7% of either Bangladeshi or Pakistani British come in the top income quintile, even underperforming the Other Asian category (who are 2x at 14%).
Isn’t it more likely that Pakistani folks in Britain are more likely to be first generation immigrants? You’d need to compare generationally to get apples to apples
Perhaps one could argue that Indian migrants tend to be educational and work migrants, while Pakistani migrants tend to be family reunification migrants. But that again points back to the cultural reasons behind certain communities doing well, based on what they prioritize.
The raw numbers don’t seem to address gp’s point. Indian migration started earlier than Pakistani migration, so you’d expect more second+ generation migrants among Indians.
Edit: sorry, I didn’t realise you meant migrant flows. That is relevant, though it would still be better to control for generation.
Sorry but if we can't correlate learning to read with literacy we're not allowed to correlate anything at all. Comprehension is massive and the difference between college and 6th great reading comprehension is an ocean that influences whether people pick anything up or pass it to ChatGPT.
Sorry but that’s still not relevant. The article takes a totally different view on what’s happening. Other sides could be valid too but they’re not part of the article.
The ftc isn’t supposed to create laws though. I tend to overshoot on the consumer’s side, but the ftc is overstepping with actions like this. There should be a law passed on this point and then ftc can enforce. Or ftc can sue based on existing law and let courts buy their interpretation.
I feel like journalism, as an occupation, has had a hard time communicating why it exists over the last 20 years or so while trying to keep up with all the changes.
edit: A free primer on standards, re: confirmation.
One source can, with caution, be the basis of an article, as long as it's presented as unconfirmed. This can induce other sources to reach out to their media contacts, so it's useful.
Two sources is considered confirmed as long as they're independent. Journalists have gotten in trouble with double confirmation when it came out one cited the other.
Three independent sources is considered golden.
There's variation here if the source is the source, with actual authority on the subject, but other sources can add context they might not be willing or able to talk about.
Wait, so you're not just asking for other articles around this, you're asking for a journalist to see your hacker news comment and provide you sources?
I am asking if any journalists, many of whom are active on social media and forums like this, with the resources and access have gotten independent confirmation and, perhaps, written about it for their publications, yes.
edit: I don't know why this is so vexing to sections of the YCombinatorati.
bonus edit after a reply since I'm rate limited for a while: IME people here are happy to share articles when people ask if there's more info. Hackers, at least a broad subset who loosely identify with the principles, love to share knowledge. Some even to the point of exfiltrating it! It's almost a defining characteristic.
"Tactic" is an interesting framing. This is a discussion. Some people who might want to participate are journalists who would already be in the process of confirming or have confirmation.
I'm not doing battle here. We're not at war. I'm asking for a free exchange of knowledge among people trying to be civil toward each other.
I'm operating on the assumption that a passing journalist with a source and an interest is already doing their job and, like most journalists, tries to keep it all free and public in recognizing that's best for the good of the public even if it's hard to fund that way.
With all the accounting tricks it’s probably hard to know if this was a success. Likely there is a large share of the user base on trial periods or partner offers (e.g., free with T-Mobile)
Yeah good luck. I don’t think any hr decisions have ever been about data; it’s about following norms. If you can get the rand corp or heritage foundation to adopt this policy then maybe corporations would look into it.
The Heritage Foundation would probably fire every competent employees and replace them with partisan sycophants, like they plan to do with America in Project 2025.
Interestingly enough, I remember in my younger days being inspired by Rand Corp's 1950's era game theory work on e.g. mutually assured destruction. It later occurred to me that I don't need to be employed by a think tank to write think pieces!
That being said, I like to think that startups growing into large corporations have an opportunity to be better when it comes to things like performance management.
As soon as the market actually incentivizes it, which it almost never does, it will get better.
Most of the big companies just throw endless interviews, high pressure firings, and a lot of money at the problem and make the people below them solve the rest of the problems.
They see how much they are paying for the mess, but any medium term effort is torpedoed because of all the other things the business focuses on (lack of resources for the process and training), and other powerful individuals who want to put their own brand on hiring and firing who have significantly more ego than sense.
That seems solvable with a payload of a transceiver that is dropped outside the range of the jammer. Then you only need a spool as long as the radius of the jammer + some margin.
It’s even worse. The consultants who run the audits (usually business school recent grads) work with other consultants who shill the third party software and implementation work.
