191–200 of 491 posts
Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess, but don’t expect to escape liability for the foreseeable consequences of the systems you build for all perpetuity.
Don't hustle.
Don't crush anything.
Try not to have to give a stage presentation with a mic at the corner of your mouth.
Your creation is not completely superlative or world changing yet, speak of it realistically.
The internet is not a substitute or replacement for you having to deal with humanity.
Be nice.
Follow your curiosities and interests. Have curiosities and interests.
Don't claim false passions. You're not passionate about "revolutionizing HR" or "remaking the way people buy nail polish".
Learn how tech relates to the world and how you relate to it, don't make tech its own world.
Maybe get a hobby.
Be kind.
Middle America is not too keen on your "basic income" solution to all the problems you are creating. It brings to mind a future of living in a 300 square foot government apartment in some hideous Brutalist concrete block of a building, eating our daily Amazon rations, knowing that's just how life is going to be, forever, no need to have dreams anymore. There will be torches and pitchforks coming for you.
Uber isn't the reason Big Ag took over the family farm, and Google isn't the reason their daughter moved to Brooklyn and is now dating a girl.
But actually, I think the rural folk will be the first to adopt the "basic income" (scare quotes and all), because in a lot of ways, they're already doing it, just under a different name. SSDI, for example, is huge in rural West Virginia, whether you're disabled or no. Doctors there are in on it, as an act of compassion, because the work simply isn't there and there is no other safety net.
So, all middle America needs is appropriate framing. Call it the Real America Dividend instead of "basic income" and they'll line up for it.
People generally do love Silicon Valley and what it creates. It’s the media that doesn’t. Ask the average person what brands and products they like and use the most (or just look at the data on where and how they spend their time and money) and you’ll see that Silicon Valley is doing just fine in the eyes of the populace. In fact, Silicon Valley has never been more influential. Ask people to go to a world without iPh…
> People generally do love Silicon Valley and what it creates. It’s the media that doesn’t. Don't blame the messenger. "The media" is a reflection of the people. Not only is it made up of, largely, ordinary people; it spends billions of dollars each year to find out what ordinary people think, want, and feel. It tracks their lives in ways that companies like Google could only dream of, and is sitting on almost a cent…
Looking at the last election as an obvious example, I don’t think media is a good barometer at all for how most people feel.
People generally do love Silicon Valley and what it creates. It’s the media that doesn’t. Ask the average person what brands and products they like and use the most (or just look at the data on where and how they spend their time and money) and you’ll see that Silicon Valley is doing just fine in the eyes of the populace. In fact, Silicon Valley has never been more influential. Ask people to go to a world without iPh…
"As an aside, I’ll never understand why people get so upset for rich people making bad bets and losing a bunch of money" These rich people are not risking their own money but they risk the money of other people's pension funds and other sources. That has a real impact in people outside of SV.
People generally do love Silicon Valley and what it creates. It’s the media that doesn’t. Ask the average person what brands and products they like and use the most (or just look at the data on where and how they spend their time and money) and you’ll see that Silicon Valley is doing just fine in the eyes of the populace. In fact, Silicon Valley has never been more influential. Ask people to go to a world without iPh…
> People generally do love Silicon Valley and what it creates. It’s the media that doesn’t. Don't blame the messenger. "The media" is a reflection of the people. Not only is it made up of, largely, ordinary people; it spends billions of dollars each year to find out what ordinary people think, want, and feel. It tracks their lives in ways that companies like Google could only dream of, and is sitting on almost a cent…
No it isn't. Most of it is a magnifying glass on vocal minorities that have a narrative that can sell ads and set-off talking heads.
A true reflection of the people would be a very boring centrist and apathetic view-point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the parent did not say anything about basic income, what exactly are you responding to?
I was talking to Silicon Valley when I said "your".
I find it ironic that the article claims that people in the "SV bubble" don't understand why "Bodega" is a bad name... if you took a survey, I imagine an extremely small percentage of people would find anything wrong with that name (personally, I had to Google around a good bit to find why people had a problem with it). I think you'd have to be in an ultra-pedantic PC media bubble to extract outrage out of a name like "Bodega".
As someone outside of SV (Nevadan living in Boston and practicing medicine), I think this article largely misses the mark. I think it is true that there is a diversity problem in SV, just like there is a diversity problem in medicine. It’s a problem, because there is no a priori reason for women and ethnic minorities to be less prevalent in our high-paying fields. But that’s probably the only point that resonates. Th…
The issue here is that many people feel SV's ideas of basic income will absolutely never work in the long-term. Heck, it will never work in this country period. We can't even socialize healthcare in this country, and those who collect unemployment are looked down upon.
What makes you think basic income will ever become a reality? What makes you think a major political party wouldn't call those people freeloaders and work ceaselessly to remove those benefits if they are put in place? And what makes you think those millions of people being given subsidized, substandard, meaningless lives won't rise up against a system that has basically sucked as much productivity out of them that they could before abandoning them?
Middle America is not too keen on your "basic income" solution to all the problems you are creating. It brings to mind a future of living in a 300 square foot government apartment in some hideous Brutalist concrete block of a building, eating our daily Amazon rations, knowing that's just how life is going to be, forever, no need to have dreams anymore. There will be torches and pitchforks coming for you.
It reminds me of the endless ghettoes of William Gibson's Sprawl trilogy (Neuromancer, etc.) where people are basically warehoused and left to jack into "simstim" and rot. In reality the pitchforks will come out as you say and this endless ghetto will be paired with a total surveillance police state to contain the angry aimless masses. Perhaps not coincidentally this is exactly what Silicon Valley seems to be buildin…
It only does that if a recipient decides to do nothing but sit on their ass. Otherwise, it provides the opportunity to explore things that one wouldn't have the time to do if they were spending most of their day laboring to afford food and housing.
"Options 3, 4, 5, and 6 would employ quite a few people."
Would they? Or would robots be doing most of that work?
"The things I listed above (and more) are for civilizations who are not afraid to spend a little money and put people to work."
Work how?