Ayyaaz

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@rz2k @ATaylorFPGA Why is the salary so low in Japan? Isn't the economy strong there?

[Eric Sillekens @ESillekens]

@MehdiHacks We use one for optical transmission research, e.g., here is paper where this piece of kit is the main enabler: https://t.co/vWjcHoCMue

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@EleyWilhel484 @ATaylorFPGA What are the hourly rates and YOE to get beyond 75k Euro?

[Adam Taylor @ATaylorFPGA]

FPGA Engineering Salaries UK update. Received two emails from recruiters this morning

FPGA Engineer One - Looks to be junior, experience in AI on FPGA Drone Swarms etc Wants £30K

FPGA Engineer Two - 5 plus years, low latency, Sat Coms, several life cycle FPGA designs. Wants £55K

Why are highly skilled people asking for such low salaries. This country is done, a little ambition and they could make that per month.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@___Dario_____ Xometry is like the worse place to ever get quote regardless of manu process

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

Yeah my position appeals to a transcendent. More specifically, I follow the Eastern Orthodox church. I do believe that theology informs politics. And political theory is only an abstraction that fits below a framework about reality. But, I'm not going to discuss that with you.

Regardless, why should I think your stopping point corresponds to reality rather than merely functioning as a political preference? You can't metaphysically explain it; you only give functional/historical explanations.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

My objection remains the same.

Originally the claim seemed to be that every higher principle ultimately requires human interpreters and therefore legitimacy must terminate in the people. My objection was that mediation does not imply authorship.

Now your argument appears to be that legitimacy belongs to the people because they are the ones who experience the consequences of political power.

My question is why that followss.

Why should being subject to power make one the ultimate source of political legitimacy rather than simply one of the things political authority must serve?

The fact that a people experience the consequences of government tells me why they matter. It does not yet tell me why they become the highest court of appeal.

You describe the people as the only non-arbitrary stopping point, but I don't see the argument for that conclusion. It seems asserted rather than demonstrated.

And if a people can be vicious, ignorant, or self-destructive, as you admit, then by what standard are those judgements being made? Because whatever standard allows us to say that a people are acting unjustly appears to stand above the people themselves.

So I still don't see why legitimacy must terminate in the people rather than in whatever standard allows us to judge both rulers and peoples alike.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@TheNativist_ I'm also interested in what you think the telos of political life is. What end should political authority ultimately serve?

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

From your argument, I don't think the conclusion follows.

The fact that something requires human interpretation doesn't imply that it derives its authority from the interpreter. It only implies that it is mediated through the interpreter.

A mathematician interprets mathematics but does not create mathematical truth. A physicist interprets physical reality but does not create the laws of nature. A judge interprets justice but does not create justice itself. The distinction between mediation and creation is important.

Your argument seems to collapse these categories. Because every higher principle requires human interpretation, you've concluded that legitimacy must terminate in the people. But why is that a logical necessity? At most, it establishes that political authority is exercised through human beings, which I don't dispute.

Moreover, if the people themselves remain capable of being judged, then they cannot be the ultimate source of legitimacy. If a people collectively choose vice, injustice, or error, by what standard do we condemn them? If the people are truly the highest court of appeal, criticism must ultimately appeal back to the people themselves. But if we can meaningfully say that a people are wrong, then we have already appealed to a standard above them.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

Well, I assumed you did. For example, you wrote, "the nation is the people, alive, particular, rooted, ancestral, and sovereign." However, your clarification makes more sense to me now.

To cut to the point, from first principles, why should the people be regarded as the ultimate source of political legitimacy?

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@TheNativist_ You're not really answering my question. Why does coherence make something the highest political principle? You've explained why nations may be stable political units, not why they should be sovereign.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@TheNativist_ Why should the nation be the highest political principle?

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@macroschema It's the same in the UK

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@LeeKuanYooKay @Landeur Be like Singapore and the country is only managed through a selected elite lol.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

There's no reason for high skilled labour to plan their life around the UK if they're going to pay income tax/capital gains tax and have no expectation of long term integration. There are always better options. Even in Singapore there's a path to PR after you get a S-pass even though it's a low tax haven.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@LeeKuanYooKay @Landeur This would only work if the conditions in the UK would replicate a tax free economic zone.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@HaggsBoson @MattooShashank U wouldn't be upset because you don't live in a third world country

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@DarkStuffVideo @Landeur So now every successful political movement was establishment backed and every failed movement was suppressed by indoctrination? It just sounds like a way to remove public responsibility after the fact.

[Ayyaaz @Ayyaaz2]

@DarkStuffVideo @Landeur The population overwhelmingly opposed immigration but the population was too indoctrinated by the media to meaningfully act on it. Got it...

Meanwhile you had the The British suffragette movement that was successful in what it wanted despite being unpopular.