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

E Pur Si Muove

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#461

Post by GuiA »

nilkn wrote: post #122
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #7

Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work? Why would Sam complain about an encounter like this?

An example that comes to mind is that Apple's chief of diversity (a black woman) was recently fired and replaced by a white woman for the following comment: > "There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation." I find this to be a pretty mundane statement, and it's fairly spect…

All news outlets report her leaving of her own accord.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-and-...

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/16/apple-vp-of-diversity-l...

Please post a source documenting that person being fired.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#462

Post by alehul »

jdtang13 wrote: post #380
alehul wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right that the Bay Area offers more freedom than India or China in terms of safely espousing your views. In our lack of government-imposed restrictions, however, we've come to restrict ourselves as a society, and many believe that we've taken these restrictions too far. America has progressed through openness to ideological diversity, and through healthily engaging in debate. We're lucky that those…

No, not true. The Bay Area is ideologically safer in only two regards: you can criticize the city, and you can criticize the government. If you have personal beliefs that are even a tiny bit different from orthodoxy, Beijing is a far safer place.

I meant government-protected physical safety; I should've clarified.

As I said in the rest of my post, I agree with you that there's more room for ideological diversity without being ostracized in many other places.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#463

Post by Cshelton »

maxerickson wrote: post #332
Cshelton wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I didn't say it definitively. But I suppose you can say that. But this whole thread is one giant stereotype to begin with, so yeah. From my observation is what I should have said. And I'm in Dallas, way better than Houston ;)

Dallaganian?

I think we mostly also use -ite.. Dallasite

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#464

Post by slededit »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #435
slededit wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has done something that caused harm at some point. If that is the bar to declare a person unethical then we all are. In this framework you are right but it makes the label useless. Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person. In any case labels mean different things to different people in emotional…

>Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person. That doesn't make any sense. If I directly try to eradicate the Jews I'm immoral, if my actions just have a second or third order effect of eradicating the Jews then I'm not? Most people probably use the direct vs second order distinction when it's themselves wh…

First order effects are easily anticipated such that intent can be assumed. Second order effects are not always obvious even to experts in the field and so require debate and consideration. Intent is unlikely in this case without evidence to the contrary.

Of course If your definition of unethical doesn't require intent to harm then this is a meaningless distinction. Another Reason why labels are unhelpful.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#465

Post by exolymph »

nine_k wrote: post #236
orthoganol wrote: post #133

You know Sam, if you stopped censoring controversial positions or posts from hacker news I might take you seriously. Coming from someone who is now almost automatically moved to the bottom of threads or the ridiculous "See More" section you all implemented, who as a result just doesn't post much anymore.

Could you please point at a few controversial topics (not off-topic discussion threads) that have been censored here? I'm genuinely interested.

It depends on your definition of "censored" but culture war topics that are relevant to the tech industry frequently get flagged off the front page.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#466

Post by geofft »

AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #408
geofft wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily - they're being censored because of their refusal to engage with the scientific community and insistence on presenting their views as scientific when they're not (e.g., Murray) or because their purpose is antics and not ideas (e.g., Yiannopoulos). Both of those are things that a university should disinvite speakers for.

I went to my sisters graduation at Northwestern where Stephen Colbert was the keynote speaker. I don't see a difference between the antics of Colbert and Yiannapoulos other than what tribe they represent. One is a keynote graduation speaker, one has riots that prevent them from speaking on campus.

To be honest, I don't think I can defend inviting Stephen Colbert, either. (Especially if he's in character.)

However, commencement speeches do not have a high reputation for academic rigor to start with, so I think inviting an entertainer to speak at one is sort of different from inviting a speaker with some specific experience (either academic, or political/industrial/etc.) to give a lecture.

All that said, keep that Yiannopoulos wanted to read out the names of students without legal immigration status on stage at Berkeley. That's the sort of thing I mean by "antics." I don't think Stephen Colbert does anything of the sort. His partisanship and his satirical character mean that I have trouble saying that anything of value will be lost if he stops being invited to speak at college campuses, but he seems qualitatively different from Yiannopoulos.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#467

Post by aeorgnoieang »

UncleMeat wrote: post #424
Houshalter wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how they justify it, but empirically it doesn't seem to be the case. E.g. liberals are pretty tolerant of minority groups with more extreme opinions than average conservatives. E.g. muslims are pretty strongly against homosexuals among other things. But they don't receive anywhere near the same level of hate and vitriol even moderate conservatives will get. I think it's just based on how much of a threat a gro…

But there are muslims who don't hate gay people or who find their relationship to islam to have nothing to do with gay rights. I'm not sure you will find many liberals who are hunky dory with muslims who hate gay people, but instead they will say that it is not okay to hate a muslim person when you don't know their personal stance on things like gay marriage.

There are conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and similar people that don't hate gay people and a good number of them even support gay marriage; see:

- [Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage | Pew Research Center](http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay...)

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#468

Post by vonnik »

throwaway34689 wrote: post #148

Of the places I've lived (not necessarily in order): - Deep South (18 years - born + raised) - Boston MA (5 years @ college then job) - NYC (6+ years) - Los Angeles (1yr @ startup) - San Diego (1yr @ startup) - Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company) I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never enc…

Outrage culture in the Bay is strong, and it makes many conversations here impossible or uninteresting.

However, I think Sam occupies a rare position that he may be blind to: He is famous and the media is paying attention to what he says. That makes saying interesting things, which require taking risks, more dangerous, because more strangers are listening to him, his comments are more likely to be removed from their context, and reporters seeking clicks will deliberately misconstrue him.

So while I don't think he's wrong, I think his perception of this environment of outrage and right-thinking is exaggerated by his own celebrity. Famous people are forced to be more careful in what they say. That is less true for the rest of us.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#469

Post by smacktoward »

Houshalter wrote: post #433
smacktoward wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> liberals are pretty tolerant of minority groups with more extreme opinions than average conservatives. E.g. muslims are pretty strongly against homosexuals among other things. But they don't receive anywhere near the same level of hate and vitriol even moderate conservatives will get. This is because American Muslims are nowhere near powerful enough to write their prejudices into law, whereas conservatives control…

I mentioned that theory in my comment. It doesn't explain everything though. A conservative in California has basically zero voting power and is vastly outnumbered by liberals. Ostracizing conservatives from the tech industry isn't actually helping their cause. And is actively hurting it by giving the other conservatives fuel for a victim narrative. In fact that's the biggest problem. These two groups completely hate…

> A conservative in California has basically zero voting power and is vastly outnumbered by liberals

This is only true in some parts of California, whereas other parts of the state are notoriously deeply conservative. Orange County, for example, was central to the power base of both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. (The Nixon Library is in Yorba Linda; Reagan's is in Simi Valley.)

Taken as a whole California tilts left these days, and even Orange County isn't the hotbed of conservatism it used to be (it went for Hillary by a few percentage points). But there's still plenty of conservatism in the state -- enough for Donald Trump to win 25 of its 58 counties last year.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#470

Post by geofft »

dominotw wrote: post #430
geofft wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a single democracy. There's no shortage of random polling websites. Telling me "You are ruled by this person, who was selected in a process you knew about since childhood" is one thing; telling me "This is likely true because people on this website you've never heard of say it's true" is another. (And yes, governments where there are ad-hoc rationalizations for who gets to vote or where the procedures aren't…

I didn't say it was the "truth" or anything like that. What are you even saying?

I claimed a thing was true. You said that the results of a debate disagree with me. Either you meant that my position was likely to be untrue as a result, and in turn the position advocated by the "winner" of the debate was likely true, or you didn't mean anything relevant at all. Which is it?
Post reply on HN