Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life is Short

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 452 posts

Re: Life is Short

#321

Post by argonaut »

wfo wrote: post #229
argonaut wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have your history all wrong. If you try to squeeze the Republican party of 1900's economic policy into the current American liberalism vs. conservatism spectrum (I say squeeze because obviously the political positions of that time were different than today's), they would be liberal, and the Democrats of that time would be conservative. So the fact that once upon a time red meant liberal, but no longer does, does…

If you pay any attention to current political discussion, e.g. the field of Republican candidates they do NOT argue in favor of inequality. They describe it as a problem just as the Democrats do. And of course that's false. The Democrats of the 1900s are conservative; the new deal is the most iconic conservative movement we've ever seen yes? And Hoovervilles were created by socialist thought?

What? The New Deal was socialist, which is liberal on the American political spectrum. Calling it part of American conservatism is clearly untrue.

Virtually no Republicans have a stated goal or platform of reducing economic inequality. Pretty much every Democrat running for president does. To claim otherwise is also clearly untrue.

I suspect you are mixing up the fact that in American politics, conservatism (which is "red") consists of what Europeans would call liberalism (in fact the New Deal was part of the reason the definitions flipped: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition).

Re: Life is Short

#322

Post by jacquesm »

ZoF wrote: post #293
ZoF wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, we've collectively read at least a few of pg's essays; I think it's fair to say that we know him better than you do :)

Judging by these downvotes you all actually think that pg's wife knows him better than psuedonymous hn posters? Ridiculous.

I think the sarcasm was a bit too subtle, at the same time maybe this isn't the time for it?

Re: Life is Short

#323

Post by enraged_camel »

wfo wrote: post #229
argonaut wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have your history all wrong. If you try to squeeze the Republican party of 1900's economic policy into the current American liberalism vs. conservatism spectrum (I say squeeze because obviously the political positions of that time were different than today's), they would be liberal, and the Democrats of that time would be conservative. So the fact that once upon a time red meant liberal, but no longer does, does…

If you pay any attention to current political discussion, e.g. the field of Republican candidates they do NOT argue in favor of inequality. They describe it as a problem just as the Democrats do. And of course that's false. The Democrats of the 1900s are conservative; the new deal is the most iconic conservative movement we've ever seen yes? And Hoovervilles were created by socialist thought?

>>the new deal is the most iconic conservative movement we've ever seen yes?

No. The New Deal is the most liberal policy enacted in American history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority... with its base in liberal ideas, the white South, traditional Democrats, big city machines, and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient... By 1936 the term "liberal" typically was used for supporters of the New Deal, and "conservative" for its opponents.

Re: Life is Short

#324

Post by enraged_camel »

xiaoma wrote: post #122
drhayes9 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From PG's essay "Economic Inequality": "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them... Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." This feels like the heart of that particular essay and displays a r…

How is the idea that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income a "breathtaking misunderstanding of poverty"? It's absolutely true that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income and it's also true technology acts as a lever and is increasing the variation in productivity between people. At no point did PG say anything like what you claim it "sounds like" he is saying. The essay was an arg…

>>How is the idea that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income a "breathtaking misunderstanding of poverty"? It's absolutely true that variation in productivity leads to a variation in income...

No. Productivity has nothing to do with income. You can be the most productive widget-maker in the factory. That doesn't mean you will make a lot of money.

Income inequality exists and has been growing because those at the top have been reaping the increases in productivity of those at the bottom. In fact that's the entire debate: employee productivity has massively increased since the 70s, but wages have not reflected this.

Re: Life is Short

#325

Post by marincounty »

I actually liked the message in this essay. That said, I've wondered why we put so much stock/interest in PG's essays?

I've casually read some of PG's essays, and came away with a few observations:

1. It doesn't appear he puts a lot of thought into his writing. His thoughts are not new.

2. He's a C- writer. (I'm a horrid writer, but I know it.)

3. He shouldn't dash off an essays while imbibing in any chemical. I'm not saying he does, but some of these essays, and Twitter blurbs--seem to appear on the weekend.

4. It's kinda like saying lets all listen/read everything Donald Trump says because he's wealthy. Actually Trump is probally the last person you would want to listen to if you wanted to be a realestate mogul. Why--because he leaves out the the real truth to his wealth creation; a father with a lot of money, having the money to hire the right people, and monetarily comfortable enough to take chances with money. Buying Realestae, and expecting it to go up on value is kinda a given--right? I could jam an ice pick through my eye socket, and sever my frontal lobes, and still utter, "Buy Realestae--where--people want--to live."

4. I might have missed something in PG's latest essay, but I imagine he's a little rattled, like a lot of middle aged men, over all the male deaths we have had lately.

As to Life is short--that's nothing new. A hospice nurse told me, on more than a few occasions, she never met anyone who wished the worked more in the end, with that opiate drip pumping chemicals into the vein.

Relationships are what's important. I need to work on cultivating mine. I've put up a wall, and should learn to forgive people for being people. If I don't change soon, I'll be that guy with the morphine drip--thinking I wished I lived differently. I'm alwready thinking, I've wasted my life.

Re: Life is Short

#326

Post by jacquesm »

jl wrote: post #138
geofft wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm curious why this essay was written. A week after having finished spending (evidently) quite a while writing two essays about economic inequality and your personal role in increasing society-wide inequality, why the sudden change to caring about spending time with your kids? And why the need to say this out loud? This essay strongly feels like rationalizing to oneself an unwillingness to engage with reasoned…

No, there's no connection with this essay and the last one. He's been thinking about writing about this topic for a long time. In fact, one of the things Paul and I talk most about is that life is short and we need to savor time with our kids and do things that are meaningful to us. So trust me when I say that, as PG's wife, I believe you are mistaken.

Dutch is a language of proverbs. One of them is 'High trees catch a lot of wind'. The further you stick your head out the bigger the chance that someone will try to score points of you, either by picking apart every word you wrote or by mis-interpreting if possible every little turn of phrase. This goes with the territory of being very visible, and Paul is now a fairly high tree in the tech landscape his essays offer easy hand-holds to those that wish to practice their written wrestling skills. This will likely get worse as YC goes on to more and more successes (pretty much un-avoidable with the speed the snowball has been going down-hill).

Since plenty of people reading Paul's essays are more than capable of figuring out the intent rather than taking pot-shots at the form in which that intent was cast I don't think given the choice between playing 'someone's wrong on the internet' and spending time with your kids there should even be a contest. On the other hand, action begets reaction and there isn't an essay that Paul wrote that did not have its share of discussion and picking apart so maybe simply accept that and totally ignore the responses?

Enjoy the time you have while you can, indeed, life is too short and I wished I could spend and had spent much more time with my kids. Before you know it they'll be borrowing your car keys and all those years that feel like they will last forever will have vanished.

Better make them count!

Re: Life is Short

#327

Post by jacquesm »

marincounty wrote: post #325

I actually liked the message in this essay. That said, I've wondered why we put so much stock/interest in PG's essays? I've casually read some of PG's essays, and came away with a few observations: 1. It doesn't appear he puts a lot of thought into his writing. His thoughts are not new. 2. He's a C- writer. (I'm a horrid writer, but I know it.) 3. He shouldn't dash off an essays while imbibing in any chemical. I'm no…

You're making a lot of assumptions here that you haven't a shred of proof for.

Re: Life is Short

#328

Post by mahranch »

wfo wrote: post #229
argonaut wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have your history all wrong. If you try to squeeze the Republican party of 1900's economic policy into the current American liberalism vs. conservatism spectrum (I say squeeze because obviously the political positions of that time were different than today's), they would be liberal, and the Democrats of that time would be conservative. So the fact that once upon a time red meant liberal, but no longer does, does…

If you pay any attention to current political discussion, e.g. the field of Republican candidates they do NOT argue in favor of inequality. They describe it as a problem just as the Democrats do. And of course that's false. The Democrats of the 1900s are conservative; the new deal is the most iconic conservative movement we've ever seen yes? And Hoovervilles were created by socialist thought?

> the field of Republican candidates they do NOT argue in favor of inequality.

That's because they are, and have been completely fine with inequality. They have done nothing, absolutely nothing which indicates they are concerned with income inequality and propose no solutions. So when you say they do not argue in favor of inequality, you're correct. That's because they completely ignore it. They pretend it doesn't exist.

Re: Life is Short

#329

Post by codeshaman »

One added word entirely changes the rationale of "life is short" for me.

"This", meaning "current".

Add the belief that there is another (form of) life after this one and suddenly the equation changes:

This life is short. But then there's another one coming.

The scientists in us agree - of course there is no evidence of life after this one, despite the messages transmitted to us from our ancestors - in the form of stories, traditions, superstitions, beliefs, religions. Depending on who you ask - we either go to a place were we stay forever (heaven/hell/spirit world) or we come back to life as another being or life form.

But the body dies and rots away !

Technically the body has died many times during it's lifetime - cells die and others are created - or rather - create themselves according to the instructions in the DNA.

The DNA is the one that moves forward through time, all the other pieces of our bodies rot away. But not the whole of it, just 50%. Half the DNA vanishes into void.

But "I" will no longer "exist" !

That's a belief. And also quite vague, because - who/what is this "I" ? Is it my body, is it my brain, is it something which lives inside the body/brain, is it all imaginary ?

Well, think about anyone - someone who's not near you right now - who is he/she ?

Right now, he/she is a thought.

Isn't everyone, dead or alive, just that - a thought ? Isn't "I" a thought then ?

If so, what is life then ? A story ?

Your story.

"Remember that man lives only in the present, in this fleeting instant; all the rest of his life is either past and gone, or not yet revealed. Short, therefore, is man's life, and narrow is the corner of the earth wherein he dwells." - Marcus Aurelius

Re: Life is Short

#330

Post by marincounty »

jacquesm wrote: post #327
marincounty wrote: post #325

I actually liked the message in this essay. That said, I've wondered why we put so much stock/interest in PG's essays? I've casually read some of PG's essays, and came away with a few observations: 1. It doesn't appear he puts a lot of thought into his writing. His thoughts are not new. 2. He's a C- writer. (I'm a horrid writer, but I know it.) 3. He shouldn't dash off an essays while imbibing in any chemical. I'm no…

You're making a lot of assumptions here that you haven't a shred of proof for.

I read his essays, although just casually. His latest essay was assumptions? There was nothing factual in it, other than "Life is short."

Yes, these are my observations. Yes--I have no proof on most of my assumptions. Doesn't negate the question, why we put so much worth in what these guys spout off?

(I never return to argue. This was a fluke, because I was shocked so many of you got so riled up over PG's essay.)

Post reply on HN