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

Interview with Paul Graham

pullrequest.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 181 posts

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#41

Post by Abhinav2000 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #40
Abhinav2000 wrote: post #25

Honestly I never found PG’s writing that insightful and ANSI Lisp was a bit of a pain to read That doesn’t take away from any of his success, which has been immense (anybody who has made over a billion is obviously amazing and had the ultimate life) but he has become too much of a cult figure in comparison to others in that stratosphere

> he has become too much of a cult figure I didn't know who PG was until recently. I knew he was well respected on HN but I've never found that much value in his blog posts either. Maybe people like his writings in the light of his achievements, rather than for their intrinsic values.

That’s exactly it. Everybody would dream to have his life and his blogs do give a vivid imagery that makes you feel good and believe you can do the same (plus with YC actually giving some hope).

But I’ve learnt a lot more from others, who are not nearly as successful.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#42

Post by marcell »

Abhinav2000 wrote: post #25

Honestly I never found PG’s writing that insightful and ANSI Lisp was a bit of a pain to read That doesn’t take away from any of his success, which has been immense (anybody who has made over a billion is obviously amazing and had the ultimate life) but he has become too much of a cult figure in comparison to others in that stratosphere

It was a long time ago, but when PG first started writing, nerds into programming were a marginal group, not rulers of the tech world with great influence. His writing resonated with that group at a time when they didn’t seem influential or especially important in society.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#43

Post by samatman »

dvt wrote: post #21
gonehome wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. Basically when PG was writing about stuff they considered part of their in-group then it was great and wonderful. When he writes about stuff that's no longer aligns with their existing political in-group's beliefs (his arguments against the wealth tax [0], his essay about conformism [1], his essay about economic inequality [2]) - suddenly he's 'di…

> My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. I think this is unfair. For example, I don't really relate to building a multi-million-dollar startup in my 20s, so the wealth tax article is simply not relevant. The article on Conformism is just highfalutin pseudo-psychologizing. Compare these to classics like "What We Look for in Founders" or "Ramen Profitable" and we have a pretty clear shif…

A sibling comment points to two essays from "back in the day" which are broadly about conformism: "What you can't say" and "Why nerds are unpopular".

If you went back and reread them, would you say they're "highfalutin pseudo-psychologizing"?

Both you and pg have changed in the intervening decade-and-change; I think you're over-weighting his changes, and under-weighting your own.

Which is natural, but I'm curious what you think of those essays in that light.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#44

Post by ishansharma »

gonehome wrote: post #15
renewiltord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy you're replying to isn't saying he doesn't have that knowledge. The guy you're replying to is saying he isn't giving us any of that anymore. It's kind of true.

My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. Basically when PG was writing about stuff they considered part of their in-group then it was great and wonderful. When he writes about stuff that's no longer aligns with their existing political in-group's beliefs (his arguments against the wealth tax [0], his essay about conformism [1], his essay about economic inequality [2]) - suddenly he's 'di…

I admit that politics is mixed into my opinions here.

It's just that based on current political climate, I think it's hard to keep politics aside.

My thoughts about pg have essentially gone through this flow: - Start reading some of the old essays in college, agree with most of the points - Start working, the essays slowed down. I read old ones once in a while, still mostly agree - Start following pg on twitter. There's some stuff I don't agree with but it's alright. - See a lot of stuff that I don't agree with [1]

(in between somewhere, I got convinced that keeping politics on sidelines is not an options)

Then I see the essay on wealth tax. My read is that main argument is that the tax compounds. But I don't see any alternative arguments. So I see his position as against the transfer of wealth and societal equality and I don't agree with that.

Maybe I'm being too opinionated or not reading deep enough, but that was my line of thought.

https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1130241349935149056

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#45

Post by jkubicek »

samatman wrote: post #36

> But a few years after it's over, we'll be acting as if [COVID] never happened. We're good at that. I fear this prediction won't come true. There's a great risk that 'health theatre' will join security theatre as a durable if not permanent part of our existence. That years from now, we'll be getting temperatures checked, schools will be shutting down for worse-than-usual influenzas, and so on. I still can't bring an…

I don't think there's any chance at all this is going to happen. Security theater in airports is perpetuated by an agency that depends on fear to secure its funding and a government that depends on us fighting the "bad guys" (even if they aren't any close to as dangerous as they want us to think).

COVID fear isn't being perpetuated by any government agencies at the national level. If anything, the federal government desperately wants us to forget that COVID exists. Once the actual risks are gone, we're going to go right back to normal, though hopefully we will have learned a lot of lessons about pandemic preparedness.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#46

Post by Quekid5 »

Abhinav2000 wrote: post #25

Honestly I never found PG’s writing that insightful and ANSI Lisp was a bit of a pain to read That doesn’t take away from any of his success, which has been immense (anybody who has made over a billion is obviously amazing and had the ultimate life) but he has become too much of a cult figure in comparison to others in that stratosphere

The only part of PG's writings I've taken seriously was On Lisp -- which was excellent, TBF! Everything else I was made aware of later was so seriously skewed by Survivor Bias[0] that it wasn't even useful for anyone outside the "world" which he inhabits.

I don't place any blame on him personally, it's just that his day-to-day is so removed from anything close to ours that his musings are... irrelevant for the vast majority.

[0] I guess? Is there an Absurdly Lucky DotCom Success Bias?

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#47

Post by ishansharma »

gonehome wrote: post #35
marcinzm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is disincentivizing the accumulation of massive wealth in a small subset of the population bad for society? What is the advantage to society of an individual accumulating tens of billions of dollars worth of wealth?

It's dis-incentivizing wealth creation in general and taking ownership away from people that build companies. There's a compelling argument that growth (that accounts for human rights and protecting the environment) is the best way to help the most people the fastest: https://press.stripe.com/#stubborn-attachments . Policy that dis-incentivizes wealth creation creates perverse incentives that limit growth. We're bett…

I agree with most of your comment and it's making me rethink some of my opinions. But is this accurate:

> Wealth creation isn't zero-sum, just because someone builds a business and creates wealth doesn't mean they're taking it from others.

I'd say that's exactly the model that some of the startups are taking. Uber and Lyft come to mind. A part of their wealth is coming from the pockets of workers who have to work for lower wages than before and get hit by depreciation that they didn't account for when earning.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#48

Post by Abhinav2000 »

Quekid5 wrote: post #46
Abhinav2000 wrote: post #25

Honestly I never found PG’s writing that insightful and ANSI Lisp was a bit of a pain to read That doesn’t take away from any of his success, which has been immense (anybody who has made over a billion is obviously amazing and had the ultimate life) but he has become too much of a cult figure in comparison to others in that stratosphere

The only part of PG's writings I've taken seriously was On Lisp -- which was excellent, TBF! Everything else I was made aware of later was so seriously skewed by Survivor Bias[0] that it wasn't even useful for anyone outside the "world" which he inhabits. I don't place any blame on him personally, it's just that his day-to-day is so removed from anything close to ours that his musings are... irrelevant for the vast m…

I actually read his ANSI Common Lisp book first, and being a newbie at the time, didn’t have any idea of his immense success. Definitely was very cool to find out that the author of book I read was a billionaire!

I’ve heard great things about On Lisp, so will read it when I get to a more advanced level. But honestly I feel like I could write a better ANSI Common Lisp book, it has so many convoluted parts. That said, it was written in the mid 90s so it isn’t correct to judge a book after 20+ years.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#49

Post by tazjin »

samatman wrote: post #36

> But a few years after it's over, we'll be acting as if [COVID] never happened. We're good at that. I fear this prediction won't come true. There's a great risk that 'health theatre' will join security theatre as a durable if not permanent part of our existence. That years from now, we'll be getting temperatures checked, schools will be shutting down for worse-than-usual influenzas, and so on. I still can't bring an…

I've had a thought about this that I haven't articulated before, so bear with me if this sounds a little rambly:

There's a large group of people who've become extremely scared as a result of what's going on at the moment. Most of them haven't actually evaluated what the risk for them personally is, yet they've made significant changes to their behaviours in the name of the health theatre.

On the other hand, you've got people who either are in life situations where that isn't an option or people who have actually done risk analysis. These people have not changed their behaviours much (beyond sticking to the random new legal requirements).

Now for the thought: I think that many of these behavioural changes (or lack thereof) will stay, essentially meaning that we've got a group of people who will act as before and a group that will act (and overreact) irrationally from now on. I think this is going to give the people in the first group an advantage for getting things done, which can have interesting long-term implications.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#50

Post by WalterBright »

samatman wrote: post #36

> But a few years after it's over, we'll be acting as if [COVID] never happened. We're good at that. I fear this prediction won't come true. There's a great risk that 'health theatre' will join security theatre as a durable if not permanent part of our existence. That years from now, we'll be getting temperatures checked, schools will be shutting down for worse-than-usual influenzas, and so on. I still can't bring an…

> Something made our society irrationally risk-averse

Our brains are finely tuned to detect danger. If there isn't any danger, danger will be exaggerated or simply invented. Our society has been very successful at eliminating all sorts of dangers, hence the irrational view of the remaining risk today.

Post reply on HN