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

Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 414 posts

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#191

Post by hackinthebochs »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #128
hackinthebochs wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. >Hillary voting to invade Iraq Her own floor speech before her vote said she was voting yes precisely to give Bush leverage…

> "Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama." Was that during the period when Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State or in the period when John Kerry had that role? In any case, the sad part is people having to defend one of two subpar candidates in this ele…

I disagree that Clinton is shitty. She certainly represents "politics as usual", and that is the current bogeyman of the hour. But ultimately she's an effective politician with reasonable positions.

Sure, there were likely better choices (not really counting Bernie here), but the two major parties cast big tents and so the candidates they bring represent that which is palatable to the largest amount of people. A large number of people will necessarily have a bad taste in their mouth.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#192

Post by lhnz »

whybroke wrote: post #182
lhnz wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's much more likely that rather than "opposing democracy" he is attempting to connect a pro-technology viewpoint to an anti-globalisation one, and wishes to position himself politically so that he can eventually leverage this. This is more believable to me since he has been giving talks on it for the last three or four years [0]. Liberal newspapers might want to convince you that this is all about hating de…

For that to be, Trump would have to win (or have post election influence) and Thiel would have to believe Trump's low education, semi-ludite supporters could be convinced the tech that displaced many of them is good. It's hard to image Thiel could possibly believe the latter but surely it's impossible that he believes the former. >...Liberal newspapers... Like the WSJ?

Trump also has high education, non-luddite supporters or at the very least supporters that could be brought over to considering investing in a future America that makes itself 'Great' through government spending on infrastructure and science. It could be that Thiel believes he is speaking to these people (some of which might only be Trump supporters in 2016 because they always vote Republican).

My central point is that he's been speaking about both economic and technological stagnation for many years and it is foolish to consider his actions now as completely distinct from this.

I've no idea whether he believes Trump will win or not. I expect that he didn't require it. His donation allowed him to speak at the RNC, and this has no doubt increased his political reach massively.

I was joking when I said liberal newspapers. They are not liberal at all.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#193

Post by hprotagonist »

masklinn wrote: post #162
hprotagonist wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, I guess, if you're Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency.

> Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against A person worth north of 2 billion does not risk being discriminated against.

In Thiel's case, that depends entirely on how rude Trump intends on being to gay people.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#194

Post by hiringmanager »

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #170
archagon wrote: post #26

Based on the awful things Trump has said and (apparently) done, it should be blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your usual political rivalry. Pao is right: "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." Quite literally at times! (I might give a pass to the people following the party line or acting on incomplete information, but Thiel knows exactly…

This is the first election where you were concerned about violence on e day? I guess you don't remember the odds on Obama surviving his first month in office. Not only were assassination attempts expected, they were probable enough to have betting odds at Paddy Power. You probably don't remember Bush Jr's 2004 victory, either, where literally millions of people took to the streets. Also notable that it looks like the…

I care a great deal about the quality of elections in the USA and have been watching this issue since the 1990s. In 2001 there were real problems exposed, not just hanging chads but real problems with the way software counted votes. Result massaging is a real thing.

In 2004 I worked for a third party candidate, who had a direct line to live numbers as they came in. He also called to thank me that evening. One of the things he related to me was that they were watching vote counts as they got announced and he was doing very well, but once he hit a certain threshold the software seemed to switch and he would start losing votes.

This isn't a case of his percentage going down as more votes were counted, but his absolute vote count going down as more votes were counted-- something that should be an impossibility. And not just in one precinct but in dozens of them, particularly in areas of a particular software maker's machines.

I don't consider the elections valid because the machines that count the votes have closed source software and come from two politically connected companies.

The sad thing is that MIT described a solution that would allow online voting in such a way that anyone could independently audit the election without knowing who voted for whom (you could verify that your vote was in fact counted and that the total count is correct, but not know who your neighbor voted for)... they announced this in the 1990s I believe, but of course it wasn't adopted.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#195

Post by archagon »

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #170
archagon wrote: post #26

Based on the awful things Trump has said and (apparently) done, it should be blatantly clear to anyone remotely following the election that isn't your usual political rivalry. Pao is right: "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." Quite literally at times! (I might give a pass to the people following the party line or acting on incomplete information, but Thiel knows exactly…

This is the first election where you were concerned about violence on e day? I guess you don't remember the odds on Obama surviving his first month in office. Not only were assassination attempts expected, they were probable enough to have betting odds at Paddy Power. You probably don't remember Bush Jr's 2004 victory, either, where literally millions of people took to the streets. Also notable that it looks like the…

I remember being slightly worried during Obama's election, but at least during that election one of the presidential candidates wasn't outright advocating aggression at the polling stations.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#196

Post by sidcool »

untog wrote: post #101
dfabulich wrote: post #9

There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting investors. Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin... Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good invest…

IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation. He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged". He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him. Thiel, of course, doe…

Thiel reminds me of Zobrist from Dan Brown's novel and now a nice, The Inferno

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#197

Post by Delmania »

debacle wrote: post #171
Delmania wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that this election is not about a difference of opinions over the fundamental issues. It's become a spite-driven, rage-fueled, all out fear mongering and hate breeding spectacle. Trump's supporters have, in some cases, started talking open revolt if he doesn't win. On Twitter, there was a hashtag of #RepealThe19th, which essentially said they wanted to disenfranchise women in efforts to ensure Trump is…

> It's become a spite-driven, rage-fueled, all out fear mongering and hate breeding spectacle. That happens every time. > Trump's supporters have, in some cases, started talking open revolt if he doesn't win. This also happens every time. > On Twitter, there was a hashtag of #RepealThe19th, which essentially said they wanted to disenfranchise women in efforts to ensure Trump is supported. Eco-terrorists vote too. > T…

> Being receptive to free speech means being receptive to free speech, full stop. It is a pillar of our country, and regardless of how incendiary you view anyone else, this is a country where the KKK, fundamentalist groups of all flavors, Nazis, etc, are all allowed to exist and that's important.

It is perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions that free speech means all speech is protected. Libel, slander, and sedition are all forms of speech that is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#198

Post by rmc »

551199 wrote: post #160
tristanho wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is very much a difference between "uninviting companies " based on their support of a bill and firing a partner for his personal political viewpoints. These aren't apples to apples comparisons; this issue isn't that simple.

Yes, consider the outrage if conservative would fire someone on political viewpoints. All this alleged 'Trump is racist and hates x' is complete BS. If you read the wikileaks emails there is a major media & Clinton collusion going on. That should pause everybody. The way Democrats are running this campaign is really worrying as show in todays leaks 'CLINTON CAMP HIRES AGITATORS TO INSTIGATE VIOLENCE'[0]. Edit: I'm be…

> Yes, consider the outrage if conservative would fire someone on political viewpoints.

What do you think all those "Religious Freedom" bills are? Fire the (out) gays.

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#199

Post by hprotagonist »

georgemcbay wrote: post #153
hprotagonist wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, I guess, if you're Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency.

"who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency" Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against. I'm not saying minorities who are rich aren't also victims of prejudice and such, but when you are rich and relatively famous (and any kind of minority) you are very unlikely to be openly discriminate…

>Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against.

I would remind you that the chief claim in US v. Windsor was about the tax implications of a lesbian wedding not recognized at the federal level, which incurred a higher estate tax penalty (to the tune of ~$380,000) which is unconstitutional under the 14th.

That seems exactly like something that Peter Thiel probably cares about if he ever chooses to marry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

Re: Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

#200

Post by dragonwriter »

archagon wrote: post #195
ohthehugemanate wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first election where you were concerned about violence on e day? I guess you don't remember the odds on Obama surviving his first month in office. Not only were assassination attempts expected, they were probable enough to have betting odds at Paddy Power. You probably don't remember Bush Jr's 2004 victory, either, where literally millions of people took to the streets. Also notable that it looks like the…

I remember being slightly worried during Obama's election, but at least during that election one of the presidential candidates wasn't outright advocating aggression at the polling stations .

To be fair, organized voter intimidation by one of the major parties isn't unheard of; Trump is mostly just unique in doing himself what would usually happen deniably at a lower level of the organization (which may or may not be related to the fact that Trump lacks most of the lower-level organization a major party candidate would usually establish.)
Post reply on HN