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

Haters

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 308 posts

Re: Haters

#211

Post by danso »

johnwheeler wrote: post #205
rjdagost wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you ever read about the obsessive determination with which Harry Markopolos worked to expose Bernie Madoff? He had a visceral obsession with Madoff, working for almost a decade to expose Madoff's scam. John Carreyrou likewise had a longterm fixation on exposing the Theranos scam. These weren't mere "disputes" over technicalities- they were all-consuming endeavors that became core to the identifies of the whistleb…

That’s crazy. They weren’t haters. In both cases there were career incentives that drove each to pursuing their targets. At no point did either say to themselves, I hate this fraud because why good on him/her and not me? They thought, I’m going to bust this crooks ass because this is a true injustice that should be exposed, and I’m going to be the one who benefits from doing it. There’s a big difference between cheat…

What is your standard for determining that someone else is actually a "hater"? Because people like Carreyrou were most definitely considered "haters" by Holmes' supporters – Tim Draper in particular called Carreyrou "a hyena" [0].

Your reasoning that Carreyrou is not a hater because he had "career incentives" that drove him is not a sound argument. A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain. If you seek to destroy something by violating your own principles (e.g. journalistic truth), then you can be thought of as "hating"/"despising" that something, whether or not you personally gain from its destruction.

[0] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/bullied-into-submiss...

Re: Haters

#212

Post by htfu »

htfu wrote: post #142
yaih wrote: post #110

I once read an article in Readers Digest with the title "Why we gossip". I started reading, prepared for something which was probably going to point out all the flaws in those people who gossip, and how they can be rectified etc. But the article took a very interesting turn. It said, (paraphrasing) without gossip, people in power will arrange everything in the general direction of usurping more power (e.g. dictators)…

Well that was interesting until the attempt to turn "To just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables." and following regret over saying half, into "Hillary thought everyone who doesn't agree with her is a deplorable person." I mean just, at least try?

My issue with this being I think the GP in its last sentence completely negates its otherwise decent analysis by giving an example not of someone "taken down to earth" or similar by "reasonable" hating, gossip or what you will, but instead having their words spun out of proportion to where something qualified several times over gets remembered as a blanket statement. Even if it fits your morals that they deserved as much, it can't be said to be true, so you'd have to posit truthiness is somehow good. Which I think is real bad.

It makes very little sense to me. Almost reads like a joke.

Edit: shit I'm dumb

Re: Haters

#213

Post by OnlineGladiator »

japhyr wrote: post #184
mannykannot wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this allegation about the intent of Graham's article is correct, then that article comes across as disingenuous and passive-aggressive, regardless of its validity with respect to haters in general.

The CEO of Lambda School is one of the reviewers of this article.

Wow, I didn't even notice that. Good catch.

Re: Haters

#214

Post by tempsy »

rjdagost wrote: post #172

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

This feels out of touch in light of Epstein, who had connections to MIT, Harvard, Bill Gates, etc

Re: Haters

#215

Post by johnwheeler »

danso wrote: post #211
johnwheeler wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s crazy. They weren’t haters. In both cases there were career incentives that drove each to pursuing their targets. At no point did either say to themselves, I hate this fraud because why good on him/her and not me? They thought, I’m going to bust this crooks ass because this is a true injustice that should be exposed, and I’m going to be the one who benefits from doing it. There’s a big difference between cheat…

What is your standard for determining that someone else is actually a "hater"? Because people like Carreyrou were most definitely considered "haters" by Holmes' supporters – Tim Draper in particular called Carreyrou "a hyena" [0]. Your reasoning that Carreyrou is not a hater because he had "career incentives" that drove him is not a sound argument. A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating pu…

> A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain.

That is exactly the thrust of PGs essay. Neither of those people violated their own principles. Holmes and Madoff are frauds. Full stop.

Tim Draper did consider Carreyou a hater. Draper was proven wrong the instant Carreyou was vindicated. Carreyou didn’t want Holmes to fail because “why her and not me” like Draper might have thought. He wanted her to fail, if anything, because she deserved to. Truly deserved to.

Re: Haters

#216

Post by juancampa »

I'm not a psychology expert by any means but this reminds me of Adler's idea about the Superiority Complex [1] and how it's a defense mechanism for an Inferiority Complex. I think PG arrived at the same conclusion Andler did back in the 1920s.

I learned about it from the book "The Courage to be Disliked" that talks about these two things in a very approachable manner.

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

Re: Haters

#217

Post by bkanber »

rjdagost wrote: post #172

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

PG defined haters as being obsessive and uncritical. By definition, someone who actually investigates is critical, therefore not a hater.

Re: Haters

#218

Post by danso »

sandofsky wrote: post #163

For people who don’t understand what he’s talking about, this is a reference to Lambda School. In the last few weeks, folks have been coming out of the woodwork with stories of illegal, negligent, and abusive behavior. https://twitter.com/brokenimageheap/status/12132089537542021...

When I saw Austen quote that PG post, I thought it read like a cleaned-up dignified version of Elizabeth Holmes' "This is what happens when you work to change things. First they think you're crazy, then they fight you, then you change the world.".

More context about the accusation about California regulations and Lambda: https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1211717254712135680

tl;dr: 2 weeks ago, Sandofsky emailed the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education and asked for an update on Lambda School's license to operate. He was told that Lambda "does not have an active license or approval to operate", nor has Lambda "yet to apply for approval to operate as required by law" (see edit-2 below; turns out Lambda recently applied)

AFAIK, Austen has not specifically addressed this. Even though a vague, "We're still going through the process. We did [something] on [x date] and are waiting for the next step around [y date]" would be (initially) sufficient. Certainly better than channeling Elizabeth Holmes in the Lambda slack channel.

edit: just re-read the thread and saw that someone just replied (as of an hour ago) with purported screenshots of Austen's detailed explanation in the Lambda slack "in December":

https://twitter.com/SimulationBarbe/status/12160414151108075...

edit-2: Another reply from Sandofsky, saying BPPE followed up and said Lambda has recently applied: https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1216075710818766848

Re: Haters

#220

Post by skinner_ »

lazyant wrote: post #162
kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the Netherlands, the word "loser" (in english) is used quite often.

thanks, -1 for my hypothesis. Well not totally, the fact that the original English word is used (instead of a Dutch one) is also telling.

One more data point: in Hungarian it's also common, also borrowed from English. It's spelled lúzer.
Post reply on HN