World's richest man is going to rob two cities blind with promises of jobs. Just a massive giveaway to the man who literally has the least need in the world.
Guess they don't want the people actually having any say.
> pitched the idea of Amazon University, with a customized curriculum developed in partnership with Amazon and local universities
Just gonna go full company town I guess.
> added $38 billion to Seattle’s economy from 2010 to 2016.
and made it impossible to get a modest tax passed.
> “They are about ending inequality and creating more inclusive cities,” said Richard Florida, a professor at the School of Cities and the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. “Now they’re in a game competing with one another to throw money at one of the most powerful companies in the world run by one of the world’s richest men.”
Yup, because they want to be able to say they brought amazon in. It fucks over the people who already lives there, increases inequality, and ultimately doesn't really help that many people other than Jeff.
This comment violates the HN guidelines. We don't want ideological battle here (not to mention low-rent rants). That's not because we're capitalist pigs or socialist moochers; it's because it's all repetitive and therefore boring, and it leads directly to flamewar. All scorched earth is the same.
You've been posting a lot of this for a long time. We ban accounts that do that, so I've banned this one. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended. In the meantime, would you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with?
I don’t have a bone to pick in this back and forth, however there’s something I don’t fully understand from dang’s comment: what does “low-rent rant” mean? Never heard the expression before and I don’t know if it’s a pun to the subject of the article or something else entirely referencing the tone of the OP’s comment.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it reads like a predictable rant to me, the kind of comment that destroys thoughtful discussion rather than supports it. That goes against the kind of website we want HN to be. Of course a good paint-stripping rant can be great fun (or outraging, a variant of the same), and there are other kinds of website for that.
Plenty of kinds of critique don't have this effect, and most HN users have no trouble practicing them—it's mostly just a question of wanting to.
He's atop Google search today, and articles on his site about "the purge" have far more engagement than others, so apparently many are seeking him out in light of the news.
If mere exposure to irrational ideas is this dangerous then this basically means the neoreactionaries are right and democracy is not viable. If people are that dumb they should not be able to vote.
I think the answer is much simpler but equally pathetic. The center right and center left are both so vapid and devoid of vision that they are helpless to address the "alternative" of Alex Jones. It is our elite that have failed and left a vacuum to be filled with whatever happens to be loudest.
If we had real public intellectuals and a real media and real politicians with vision Jones would be completely marginalized. He only succeeds because the culture is so empty.
There aren't that many billionaires. So are you saying they aren't the worst of the billionaire class? That's really the only way I can see the phrase working.
> I mentioned to her that they can’t sell their stock without ceding control
What about changing voting schemes?
> Does it say something about someone’s heart if they aren’t building schools and hospitals the moment they obtain enough wealth to do so comfortably?
I think it says something about their heart if they are able to get that wealthy, with rare exceptions.
Neither are going to happen. He might toss around a bit of money to try and buy a better reputation, but he's still the worlds richest man by standing on the backs of the very people who's kids need better education.
