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

A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 438 posts

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#161

Post by rwmj »

Animats wrote: post #85
cathames wrote: post #45

2011 is the context: a height of the start-up wave, ascendance of FB--presumably due to "genius". The implication being that if you are really smarter than others you must have the rewards to show it. Hopefully this would be received today as a tone-deaf denial of privilege. The great myth of meritocracy has been blown apart.

Facebook's dominance was earned. Remember Myspace? They were huge when Facebook started. Now they're tiny by comparison. Google tried and failed several times at social networks. Zuckerberg figured out how to manipulate humans in quantity through subtle programmed social cues. That's an achievement on a par with that of Hiram Maxim.

Oh come on, MySpace was an absolute disaster from a speed and usability point of view. It was obvious anyone could have done better than MySpace.

At the time I was using mixi.jp which was "MySpace done right" and was hugely engaging. (It's quite possible that Mixi might have become Facebook had they not committed commercial suicide later with some very stupid decisions. The only social network I know that deliberately tried to limit their userbase.)

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#162

Post by splintercell »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #117
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which leads to the following: How do you measure if someone is a good president? What measurements do you use to claim Trump is not a good president? Surely it can't be approval ratings since you can't expect public to understand nuances behind the decisions and what the president actually has to be doing? It can't be just GDP because GDP might have been going up anyway? It can't be what the president is saying in pu…

Some combination of GINI, average life expectancy, number of bankruptcies, business closures, unemployment, changes in all-cause mortality, median household debt, disposable income, educational attainment, and so on. If you look at a basket of well-being measures as opposed to raw GDP it's hard to argue that Trump has done a good job. Of course Covid has had a big effect. But there were many policy options for handli…

Never met a person on the right who considered GINI index as a good measure.

Regarding bankruptcies, unemployment, household debt Etc, Obama's first term would show really low score on these things, presuming that's all he had, almost none of it was caused by the actions taken by him during his presidency.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#163

Post by leonroy »

ramraj07 wrote: post #16

What's ironic to me is (IMO) Netflix is probably the shrewdest big company in existence now. Hastings has dominated not one but two markets, the second obviously larger and more insurmountable than the first. Almost Every single decision they make (including and especially ones that make customers unhappy, like their shitty browsing experience) seems so calculated and thoughtful it's just amazing. Even I thought Disn…

> Even I thought Disney plus might be the beginning of the end for Netflix, that it finally met a Goliath it couldn't best, but now even that isnt obvious anymore.

I think Disney painted themselves in a corner buying every studio and putting it under the Disney banner.

Disney have long stood for family values programming which is never edgy or pushes the envelope.

That was the reason behind Touchstone and the purchase of Miramax (and prob a few other Disney owned subsidiaries I've forgotten) to push out adult centric content and keep it separate from the Disney = family-friendly marquee.

The Disney brand today is this monolithic umbrella brand and with all their streaming content going under the Disney+ channel it's going to be hard for people to cognitiviely disassociate the brand from the content.

For example who's going to think I fancy watching Pulp Fiction tonight, let me see if it's on Disney+....

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#164

Post by WJW »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #135
koonsolo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passing on wealth to your children is part of the game. Or did you think the game ends after 1 generation?

Which means the parent of the idiot was good at the game, but does not mean the idiot himself/herself is good. Unless by "good at the game" you refer to the skill of dropping out of the right vagina, like royalists do.

The child is probably playing a different game than the ancestor who acquired the wealth in the first place.

The game the (alleged) idiot is playing is "don't lose the family fortune". If you weren't born wealthy but want to be, you are playing the "make more than you spend" game in one of its variations. There is for example an obvious slow way that might give your children a better shot at the "don't lose the family fortune" game and there are also many also many higher variability games like the "lottery" and "startup" games.

Not every game requires the same skills and personality type.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#165

Post by virgilp »

kolleykibber wrote: post #148
stjo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL: Didn’t know I was stupid for having different goals than starting a family. In non mockery voice: I think there is nothing wrong in being smart and perusing academic titles, wealth or recognition. Can’t I be happy travelling the world because I have so much passive income that I don’t care how much I spend? Can’t I be happy running megacorporation without a child?

Generally, happiness is a reward from doing what your genes want you to do. The greatest happiness therefore, should be found in the process of breeding and caring for offspring. Social status (consumption, skills and achievements) helps you secure higher quality mates and offers greater security to your offspring. That's why gaining social status, feels worthwhile, but without kids it feels a bit empty. Before kids,…

> Generally, happiness is a reward from doing what your genes want you to do.

I disagree. Generally happiness comes from being happy/content/thankful for what you have (as opposed to "having a lot"). You can be happy having no children, no fortune, no fame, etc. Conversely all of these do not guarantee happiness - Robin Williams committed suicide despite having them all, I think it's fair to assume he was not happy.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#166

Post by Grustaf »

DecayingOrganic wrote: post #28

While I agree with the article, it is important to distinguish the macro from the micro point of view. From the micro point of view, a talented individual has a greater a priori probability to reach a high level of success than a moderately gifted one. On the other hand, from the macro point of view of the entire society, the probability to find moderately gifted individuals at the top levels of success is greater th…

I think it's mostly just that intelligence is not terribly important for success. Tenacity, street smart, charisma, connections, passion are all more important than IQ.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#167

Post by Aaargh20318 »

throwaway553321 wrote: post #151
koonsolo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passing on wealth to your children is part of the game. Or did you think the game ends after 1 generation?

> Unless by "good at the game" you refer to the skill of dropping out of the right vagina, like royalists do. And some people are born athletically gifted, or extremely attractive, or with very high IQ and a temperament for grit. There are lottery winners that lose everything in a few years. Just because you are born into money, doesn’t mean you will succeed.

In the end it's not about the money. As you said, there are lottery winners who lose everything in a few years, and there are people who build a new fortune after losing everything.

That doesn't mean that being born into a privileged life doesn't have advantages, but it's about way more than just the money. It's also the connections you have. The best example right now is Trump, who is a complete and utter failure as a businessman yet people keep throwing money at him.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#169

Post by LandR »

lazyjones wrote: post #100

I love the way people who consider themselves smart rationalize their lack of success/wealth, including here. - I don't want to be wealthy anyway - To be wealthy you have to be ruthless and I prefer to be nice - smart people are so busy with issues much more important than money - wealthy people are just lucky idiots - wealthy people are just idiots who are better at exploiting other idiots - people who are wealthy s…

If I wanted to be rich I think I'd have to put much more effort into work life. I really don't want to do that.

If it comes down to working and possibly getting rich, or spending time in the pub with mates. I'll choose spending time with mates 100% of the time. I'm also very lazy, I don't think you can get rich being as lazy as I am. Hell, if it comes down to getting up before 9am to make money or sleeping in, I'll choose sleeping in.

I try to work the absolute minimum I have to that allows me my lifestyle which I'm comfortable with. If that means I never get rich, I'm fine with that.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#170

Post by brenden2 »

koheripbal wrote: post #128
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or their family donated enough money to an Ivy to have a building named after them.

I think you just proved his point. Going to an ivy league school does not make you successful. There are many many unemployed useless Stanford, MIT, Harvard graduates in this world.

That's true, but a lot of people think the school you attend matters. For example, in the context of hiring, if you have 2 otherwise candidates but you can only choose one, most people would choose the person who went to Stanford over the guy who taught himself to code or attended a lesser respected school (in most cases). Some companies are stupid enough to only hire people from fancy schools. I think Google did something like this for a while, but thankfully they stopped.

Thus, attending a fancy school is a big advantage if you've got the money or have another way to get in.

Post reply on HN