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

Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 218 posts

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#131

Post by bad_user »

Confusion wrote: post #126
techiferous wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your idea of defensiveness is different than most people's.

I think he grasps the meaning of 'defensiveness' better than most others. More and more people have started misusing 'defensive' to mean 'a response to an (implicit) accusation in which the accusation is denied'. That's not what being defensive is. Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it. Apart from that semantic mixup, I've never understood why 'being defensive' is a bad…

> Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it.

NO, being defensive means seeing a lion and either standing still and hope it will go away, running for your life or attacking it ... either way, you're defending yourself in the presence of danger.

Of course it is not an admission of guilt.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#132

Post by euccastro »

bootload wrote: post #128
mahmud wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would only work if he controlled the mailing-list server, assuming this is an actual mailing list, and not a "CC all" ad-hoc solution.

"... That would only work if he controlled the mailing-list server, assuming this is an actual mailing list, and not a "CC all" ad-hoc solution. ..." Just email each individually.

Why misspell when you can just change a bit of wording or whitespace? Spelling errors have a higher risk of being corrected.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#133

Post by dkarl »

staunch wrote: post #10

He knows more about how these guys act behind closed doors than absolutely anyone. I think it's official now: these guys were being bad and they got an appropriate bitch slap. Hopefully that's the end of it. I'm sure none of them are genuinely bad guys. There's probably just a side of some of them that's a bit greedy and stupid. Hopefully this will be the lesson they all need to keep that side suppressed permanently.

What in the world could "genuinely bad guys" mean if it doesn't include rich people who do something wrong for money, knowing that the consequences will fall on people who are not rich?

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#134

Post by mfukar »

j_baker wrote: post #119
spoondan wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling TechCrunch's reporting a "bullshit superangel conspiracy theory" is, if nothing else, a prime example of defensiveness.

No, that's disagreement. People who have something to hide usually don't draw attention to themselves.

If you're referring to rational people who have something to hide, those tend to lose their rationality once the shit hits the fan (like when Arrington posted "So A Blogger Walks into a Bar..").

McClure got pissed off because of an article that didn't even provide names, went out and verified the facts of the meeting, attacked PG on some wild assumptions to the effect of "what goes around comes around", and his post goes from "the agenda was drinks, good food, & shooting the shit" to "in addition to pricing & valuation, some of the more interesting things discussed were.." basically confirming Arrington.

In the most childish way possible.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#136

Post by dkarl »

techiferous wrote: post #120
cookiecaper wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you so sure their intentions are pure or that "none of them are genuinely bad guys"? Do you know the people that were there well? If you don't, you're not really qualified to say this. People put a lot of time into image and posturing and often it has little to do with what's really under the surface. If they are in actually involved in illegal collusion, they should be charged and prosecuted. I don't think i…

"genuinely bad guys" Here's my take: generally, people and life situations are very complex and the reality is that people don't neatly fall into categories of "good guys" or "bad guys". Zoroastrianism really emphasized individual responsibility and thinking of individuals as good or bad. This made its way into Judaism and then spread into Christianity and Islam. Since our heritage as a nation is Christian, we have p…

You missed the context: these guys were being bad and they got an appropriate bitch slap. Hopefully that's the end of it. I'm sure none of them are genuinely bad guys.

In other words, the point of them being "genuinely bad guys" or not is whether the affair should be allowed to blow over after a few firm but loving reproaches. staunch and cookiecaper are both speaking in the same terms, on the assumption that only "bad guys" need to be punished harshly, because non-"bad guys" want to behave well and just need a mild wake-up call now and then.

Rejecting the concept of individual people with persistent qualities forces you to argue in different terms, but it doesn't necessarily change the result of the argument. So let's talk about punishment from the opposite orientation:

People exist in complex fields defined by their personal relationships and social institutions. People tend to engage in behavior that results in comfort, advancement, and social approval, they and tend to avoid behavior that results in deprivation, loss of position, and loss of social capital. Harmful behavior is controlled by ensuring that personal relationships and social institutions punish bad behavior instead of rewarding it.

In this case, that means society should find out what these people did, enforce any laws against it, and (in the case of people who know them and work with them) shame them with disapproval and show an aversion to dealing with them. Otherwise bad behavior will flourish and affect more people. We do not want to be responsible for tempting people to behave in ways that are injurious to others, because aggressive, selfish behavior harms those who engage in it as well as their victims. If we, as a society, do not inflict just punishment on those who harm others, then aggressive, selfish behavior will increase, and there will be more suffering for both victims and aggressors.

tl;dr: Rejecting the idea of "genuinely bad guys" leads to the conclusion that they should be punished regardless of whatever personal characteristics might be ascribed to them.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#137

Post by ladon86 »

codexon wrote: post #81
lotusleaf1987 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I would. It doesn't take that much more effort. Your argument is that he's too busy for punctuation to be worth his time? What about people who are more wealthy than him who manage to do so? What would you think if Warren Buffett wrote like this? He's acting like the kids in junior high who thought they were being rebellious by shopping at Hot Topic and dressing punk. He's just replaced one style for another. He…

Maybe you would, that's why you're complaining about it. But my whole point is that there's more people like him that don't feel like writing perfectly. As you just admitted, it takes extra effort to write for your audience instead of writing for yourself. And why would he bother to hire an assistant to edit it? That also takes effort. Warren Buffet obviously has the choice to behave in the same manner. He also has t…

Because it's stupid. Just being rich doesn't make you immune to criticism. Sure, he can do what he likes, but other people are free to voice how dumb it is. I don't see what money has to do with it.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#138

Post by Eliezer »

pjscott wrote: post #111
marknutter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. He's used up his "nuclear bomb" title for the year. What happens when something truly scandalous happens? I suppose he could go up to hydrogen bomb..

Above that are Tsar Bomba , small asteroid, large asteroid, and antimatter bomb. If events get much more shocking, then we go up to disastrously-located black holes and self-replicating berserker swarms. After that, I guess all that's left is the ultimate menace of a superintelligent and profoundly alien AI that cares only about maximizing the number of paperclips in the universe. What I'm saying here is that Michael…

http://www.google.com/search?q=thunderbolt+singularity

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#139

Post by relix »

lachyg wrote: post #44
quesera wrote: post #20

Seriously, Ron Conway doesn't know how to spell "entrepreneur"?? If that's possible, it's awesome, don't get me wrong, but it seems fishy.

Possibility that he just made a typo :)

Ten times exactly the same? Occam says it wasn't a typo ;)

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#140

Post by codexon »

ladon86 wrote: post #137
codexon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you would, that's why you're complaining about it. But my whole point is that there's more people like him that don't feel like writing perfectly. As you just admitted, it takes extra effort to write for your audience instead of writing for yourself. And why would he bother to hire an assistant to edit it? That also takes effort. Warren Buffet obviously has the choice to behave in the same manner. He also has t…

Because it's stupid. Just being rich doesn't make you immune to criticism. Sure, he can do what he likes, but other people are free to voice how dumb it is. I don't see what money has to do with it.

This is what I was responding to:

I seriously don't understand how people were defending his writing style.

I explained that his writing style is defensible because he doesn't care about the general audience. And if there were more people as rich as him, you'd see more people not bending over backwards with perfect grammar and an apologetic tone.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean he isn't justified in sounding off if it makes him feel better.

Post reply on HN