101–110 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which bit of "risk index" are you not getting? Alternatively: how are you in a position to claim they're 100% not frauds?
So I have to prove they aren't fraud otherwise they are fraud by default. Makes perfect sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Using charm and calculated moves to influence others isn’t a bad thing. It’s the basis of flattery. Flattery doesn't have to be calculated. As to calculated moves, distinct things can fit the same labels. Intent, context, and execution are all important.
I would argue that flattery without calculation is just poorly calculated flattery. Same applies to many other traits in the list. Low achievements people lie right and left just as well. Are cynical when convenient, yada yada. Basically, the list says that these 30s are just like an average Joe, but smart. Which should be a surprise to no one.
So they're smart enough to be calculated and stupid enough not to be so calculated that they look untrustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you missed the bottom section? There's plenty of comments taking umbrage at it. Alternatively, you think it's okay to make up stuff about young people because they got a seed round. That's stock-human behavior but it's not rational or kind .
I was specifically thinking of Cursor when I said “companies with twenty billion dollar valuations”. My point, as I think was clear, was that criticising the founders of billion dollar companies via satire is not “punching down” by any means. Nor is it libel. You are throwing words around without meaning. (and “young people”, there we go with the smolbean stuff again. If they’re too young to face criticism then they’…
"There we go with the smolbean stuff again": I never said that or anything like it. You're putting an argument in my mouth and then swatting it down. Twice now.
"If they're too young for criticism they're too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can't have it both ways." Scroll the watchlist. Most of those people aren't running billion dollar companies. That's the whole point. I definitely agree not all CEOs are good people and I generally agree the irrational argument all CEOs no matter of age are more likely to be net-destructive to society. That's the most extreme version of what you're saying, and we likely agree on it.
So we agree the conduct towards Cursor, and whatever other companies you want to name, is fair game. The only question is whether that extends to literally everyone on the list. I don't think it does. That's it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30u30 are an artifact of networking not directly Machiavellianism/sociopathy; pals promote them (often as children of their pals) to the list.
You don't think Machiavellianism would be overrepresented in a group selected in this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think Machiavellianism would be overrepresented in a group selected in this way?
Indirectly; U30 are typically propelled by their parents who might be well-connected Machiavellian or sociopathic.