Live data from Hacker News

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

theatlantic.com

431–438 of 438 posts

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

#431
post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I'm sorry you find two respected professors, one at NYU and one at Stanford, to be of dubious authenticity. Obvious straw man. I have no qualms with those professors, just with your claims about their books, which at least one summary contains no trace of. Should I read those books merely to verify your claims? I'm not so sure. > I've virtually never seen these sorts of dynamics at organizations below 100 peopl…

Your username suggests you shouldn't read these books. You should skim notes about these books and write obnoxious posts based on those, claiming the person you're talking to is lying based on no evidence at all. Indeed, Dictator's Handbook has a nice summary someone posted in this thread. Your link wasn't even a summary, but someone's take-home notes for their own career. > So your initial claims don't apply to CEOs…

> The article was talking about Reed Hastings and Netflix. We were talking about publicly-traded companies with shareholders.

You were writing about "most CEOs". Pardon me for taking you literally and/or seriously.

> maybe that goes with not being interested in longer texts, so much as in skimming summaries.

I'm very interested in worthwhile texts, just not based on recommendations by people making obviously false claims on the Internet.

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

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who is a complete and utter failure as a businessman yet people keep throwing money at him. Perhaps you are judging him by the wrong metrics? Trump has always wanted to be a “great man” of history while being able to live a life of excess.

> Trump has always wanted to be a “great man” of history while being able to live a life of excess. He's failing at that to. He'll go into the history books as the worst president the US ever had by a wide margin.

> He's failing at that to. He'll go into the history books as the worst president the US ever had by a wide margin.

Unlikely. Once the constant negative media coverage dies down the hate will fade as well.

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

#433
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure if that’s a given. People going back to piracy sort of assumes people will happily walk back to watching sketchy streams on laptop screens. I think the bar will pretty high for people who wish to watch on Apple Devices, Rokus or Smart TVs. There has been enough time for people to get locked into walled gardens.

Piracy in 2020 is more polished than first party streaming platforms.

Piracy in 2010 was more polished than 2020's first party streaming platforms.

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

#434

> I think we should eliminate the corporate income tax . . . and tax income once, when it hits a person. LOL what? Can't have it both ways, pal. I've seen this line of thought expressed a few times before, and it strikes me as disingenuous to hold that a corporation is a person... right up until the moment that idea puts slightly less money in your pocket.

I'm surprised at the number of downvotes. I feel like my position is self-evident. In my view, either a corporation is a person under the law, in which case this is indeed taxing income when it hits a person; or a corporation is not a person and should not be able to assume sacrificial liability for those controlling it.

However, I recognize that what may be self-evident to me may not jive with others' perspectives. Would any of the downvoters care to elaborate as to why, in their view, a corporation should be a person for some purposes but not a person for taxation purposes?

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

#435
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget good looks and a rich uncle to bail you out of a jam.

How dare you, sir, attack the *n dream!

Haha, finally something caught a (down)vote, I knew you guys were reading ;)

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

#436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a heuristic. A single, cheap, effective one IMHO, but no heuristic is 100% accurate.

There is nothing to indicate any effectiveness whatsoever; how many shows were cancelled as a result? The post even said they'd go ahead and check stuff. Does anyone think they WOULDN'T have checked that show equipment for one of the biggest rock bands of the day if they found no brown M&M's? Really?

It's a canary in the coal mine. Presumably they still checked other critical things but based on the canary could determine how closely they needed to check everything.

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

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor family through hard work and saving became a moderately wealthy family over time.

Sure, I didn't mean to sound like I am stomping on the Dream. What I meant was, how specifically did this family that came from poverty accumulate $300k? Quick research says that Mike Bezos worked as an engineer for Exxon after graduating college, and saving that money wisely can add up to $300k.

That does not change the calculus in my mind, because the situation goes beyond just money. How did the Sr. Bezos land such a well paying job with Exxon? An engineer position puts him in a privileged class. We have to look back further generations to see how his family was in such a position to raise a successful engineer?

Let alone that Sr. should have the knowledge and support he required to manage his money so well. I look at the Jr. Bezos having a privilege to have a father who he could turn to for advise, or who may have guided his development. Not saying he did, cuz I don't know the family, but it sounds like it was a real possibility. Who saves all that money, only to entrust it to his estranged son who he don't know or trust--as if he haven't had a hand in imparting the necessary temperament, sensibility, and wisdom for his son to be successful in some way in the economy? LOL.

How many people today are fortunate to have grown up in this time, in this is a period of unprecedented economic growth and social change, who have squandered their earnings, because they didn't have the support of knowledgeable and trustworthy parents or family?

Sounds to me like a chain of great decisions, luck or both.

I can give a counter example. I moved to an affluent town on the North Shore of Long Island, NY. I met a woman in my neighborhood who described to me her career at the local hospital, as a nurse, for over 20 years. She's African American, and landed this job in the late 70s early 80s by my calculation. She benefited by the social changes at the time that accepted African Americans as nurses in a largely white community. I also met her son, and he struggles with under-employment in his career. I had the impression she didn't understand why he was in that situation. She was proud of her success. I imagine it was difficult for her to reconcile her career in nursing, and her son's struggles. She had success, why not him? Unlucky, more like it.

Right now--that hospital is part of one of those large health care corporate systems. If she had this job today, its very possible she would not have seen her salary increase year after year, nor enjoyed a pension, nor stayed with the same organization for so long just being a nurse. There will always be new nurse graduates with more energy with just enough knowledge who are more manageable by corporate. That's the reality of hospitals and healthcare today, despite growth in this field.

Fortune goes to the right person who is in the right place at the right time. And if you frack up and fall out, someone else is ready to take your place, hey. Who in a great position can say they did it entirely alone? Meag Lottery winners. haha.

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

#438

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.

Do you really believe Zuckerberg is an idiot? He has successfully navigated industry shift to mobile. He decisively and swiftly purchased Instagram and WhatsApp, buying his way into two major upcoming trends. You may think he is jerk or evil but no way an idiot.

"idiotic" was stated by the original post, not my reply. My objection is to the formulation that massive financial success in tech is proof of genius-level intellect. Being relatively smart may be necessary, but it is certainly not sufficient. Connections, opportunity, timing, and greed are other prerequisites. On the other hand, moral concerns about the negative downstream effects of your goals--something that a supposed genius would have insight into--would be inhibitors. As to the purchases you mentioned, I would argue that the game is a lot easier when you already have hotels on Boardwalk. And I certainly don't attribute strong imperial instincts as a mark of genius.
Post reply on HN