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

Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

blog.cloudant.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 279 posts

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#201

Post by cickpass_broken »

andylei wrote: post #182
cickpass_broken wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Genetic manipulation by Monsanto has relied on herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. This comes with averse effects and risks. The use of herbicides/pesticides must be reduced. We need pollinators, we need genetic diversity and biodiversity. We must look ahead more than 25 or so years. When it comes to soil fertility and contamination we should be looking ahead 100 years. 2. Is it possible for a group to select…

> Genetic manipulation by Monsanto has relied on herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. This comes with averse effects and risks. The use of herbicides/pesticides must be reduced. We need pollinators, we need genetic diversity and biodiversity. We must look ahead more than 25 or so years. When it comes to soil fertility and contamination we should be looking ahead 100 years. 1. lowered levels of food production have…

1. If we continue our use of herbicides/pesticides to the point of wide-spread colony collapse, spread of plant disease (perhaps canola, soy, or corn), significant reduction of nitrate fixation, increased human cancers we may also see hundreds of millions of people die or be without food.

Obviously, no one is suggesting we stop producing enough food for people to eat. But you need to look past the next 5, 10, 25 years. Those issues listed above are all real. And can all be linked to herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. We need to work on a new solution, a new system. The current situation is not a long-term answer.

2. This is more a theoretical morality issue. How much control/ownership should any one entity be allowed to have on life. What if they aren't just patenting seeds for RoundUp resistance? More so, say I live in a certain climate where I want a certain field tomato to grow. And under those circumstances I end up with a seed similar to a patented Monsanto seed. I lose in court. Other varieties of tomatoes don't grow will in my area. What do I do? I no longer have the freedom or right to grow successful tomatoes. This is not reality, but a possibility. One, that I do not believe in the slightest is worth risking. This could also lead to outrageous seed pricing.

Oh while I'm at it. Let's add climate change, land degradation (http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html). Basically, yes we need to feed billions, but we also need to do that 25-50 years from now. The practices used for high-yield crops are limiting our ability to produce food in the future.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#202

Post by tptacek »

sitkack wrote: post #194
tptacek wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read a bunch of your old comments so I could understand who I'm talking to. You're clearly a pretty smart person. And you've been here for a little while now, so you're presumably somewhat invested in the community on HN. With that in mind, help me understand what you hoped to communicate with this comment. Did you feel like you were maybe pointing out something I hadn't considered? Did you expect a comment li…

I was railing against the idea that business is one thing, and that as long as behavior is not illegal that it is ok. I feel like we are infected with a more virulent form of 1905. Ethics exist everywhere for all time, they don't belong in a free speech zone. The idea that, business is business. Of course it is, that is a tautology. We both did the snarky comment dance. I am going to outline an analogous skit, imagin…

But what does that have to do with the question of whether Monsanto is right or wrong to be suing farmers? Because that's the question at the top of this thread.

I said, in effect, farmers are sympathetic, and Monsanto is not, but that doesn't necessarily make Monsanto wrong. You responded --- from what I can tell --- by saying Monsanto is unsympathetic. Why are you telling me that?

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#203

Post by irrumator »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #187
irrumator wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a more recent development actually, that started in the last year particularly. Hacker News had a much more business and startup friendly environment, but the anti-capitalist attitude is a sentiment that was found mostly at the bottom, downvoted for their mostly incoherent rants. It's unfortunate that their numbers have gained. I think one of the biggest signs to always look for is how many comments a…

Says the guy whose account is under four months old... while responding to one whose account is slightly over two months old. The ironing is delicious.

This is just a throwaway account and not the one under my real name. I've been reading Hacker News since before it was even called that. My "real name" account is over 4 years old.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#204

Post by jasonlotito »

pg wrote: post #196
oldstrangers wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck anyone that celebrates doing business with them. This was one of those little cash cows that Cloudant should have kept to themselves. Any PR person probably could've saw this coming. I'm sure there are many evil corporate dealings in the world that would warrant such a "content-free rant"; however, those companies are smart enough not to celebrate their evil doin…

Any PR person probably could've saw this coming. The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here. Don't you see that you're insulting yourself by saying that you need to have news spun/censored for you in the way PR firms do? I noticed this in the comments about the recent Airbnb and Dropbox controversies too. People did not seem to grasp the iron…

> The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here.

So, companies shouldn't spin, but people commenting here should?

That's not what you mean, I'm sure. But I'm pretty sure you can see how it would be easy to say the same thing you just said with the roles of company and commenter reversed and it would make the same amount of sense.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#205

Post by oldstrangers »

pg wrote: post #196
oldstrangers wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck anyone that celebrates doing business with them. This was one of those little cash cows that Cloudant should have kept to themselves. Any PR person probably could've saw this coming. I'm sure there are many evil corporate dealings in the world that would warrant such a "content-free rant"; however, those companies are smart enough not to celebrate their evil doin…

Any PR person probably could've saw this coming. The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here. Don't you see that you're insulting yourself by saying that you need to have news spun/censored for you in the way PR firms do? I noticed this in the comments about the recent Airbnb and Dropbox controversies too. People did not seem to grasp the iron…

"The reason this comment thread is a worrying sign for HN is that you didn't use to have to think like a PR person here."

A couple of things.

Why are we talking about the "PR issue"? I offered Cloudant an alternative reality where, if they insisted on being evil, that their evil doings be kept in the closet. It makes wise business sense if you're going to accept money from anyone under the sun. That has nothing to do with thinking like a PR person, nor does it have anything to do with having this article spun or censored. You seem to think this deal is ok, so I tried to provide a solution that suited your own interests.

However, it is perhaps ironic that by spinning your own comments to focus on these PR irrelevancies, you have successfully avoided providing any significant contribution. Worse yet, was the "PR spin" of yours by comparing Cloudant's strategic and "fundamentally business shaping" partnership with Monsanto to someone selling a car or a computer... I guess though that's not PR talk, that's politician talk. Expert level diversion.

Monsanto is a disgusting, despicable, horrible company of the worst variety. Should we give Cloudant a pass for dealing with these people because you have a vested interest? I will happily leave HN forever if you think that is the case.

Google started their company with the motto "Do No Evil." Ethics have a substantial place in business practice, so I don't see why they shouldn't have a place on HN.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#206

Post by oldstrangers »

pg wrote: post #190
nirvana wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc. Some threads attract one crowd and the comments go one…

I don't think there are two separate crowds. I think HN's initial population of smart, mostly apolitical nerds has been diluted by the arrival of a lot of new users who are not as smart, and are thus more excited by shallow controversies. Politics happens to be a big source of shallow controversies. But I don't think most people who upvote comments saying "Fuck Monsanto" do it because they have a deep interest in pol…

Paul Graham thinks I'm dumb. I think I might put that on my resume.

Realistically, this isn't an issue of intellect. It's an issue of ethics, morality and emotion. Or then again, maybe I'm just an idiot.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#207

Post by ebaysucks »

nirvana wrote: post #122
ebaysucks wrote: post #4

Monsanto is one of those rare companies that is so fucked up that it is hated by both socialists and libertarians.

I know socialists hate it, because they hate capitalism. I don't think libertarians hate it, because they don't hate capitalism. However, as libertarianism has become popular, more and more there are socialists (leftists, "democrats" and "liberals") who are deciding they are "libertarians" without understanding what libertarianism is. Libertairans -- and this is what defines the movement-- are people who agree with t…

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mises+monsanto

I don't need a lecture on what libertarianism is.

Also, if you think Monsanto represents pure capitalism, you are not much of a libertarian.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#209

Post by raldi »

pg wrote: post #190
nirvana wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc. Some threads attract one crowd and the comments go one…

I don't think there are two separate crowds. I think HN's initial population of smart, mostly apolitical nerds has been diluted by the arrival of a lot of new users who are not as smart, and are thus more excited by shallow controversies. Politics happens to be a big source of shallow controversies. But I don't think most people who upvote comments saying "Fuck Monsanto" do it because they have a deep interest in pol…

Regarding your second sentence, it's interesting that the exact same thing happened to reddit in 2005.

I wonder how the population sizes compare.

In their case, blind upvoting of empty politically-charged headlines turned off mainstream visitors (or just people who were looking for actual content in their political links) and attracted ever more such voters in a vicious cycle. Fortunately, the creation of /r/politics helped, but the site to this day struggles to keep /r/politics from overflowing into the rest of the site.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#210

Post by janj »

pg wrote: post #190
nirvana wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc. Some threads attract one crowd and the comments go one…

I don't think there are two separate crowds. I think HN's initial population of smart, mostly apolitical nerds has been diluted by the arrival of a lot of new users who are not as smart, and are thus more excited by shallow controversies. Politics happens to be a big source of shallow controversies. But I don't think most people who upvote comments saying "Fuck Monsanto" do it because they have a deep interest in pol…

I have a deep interest in politics. I've watched and read much on Monsanto. I upvoted because I like to think if given the chance I would refuse to partner with a Monsanto no matter how much $$$. I'm comfortable with you thinking I'm dumb based on an upvote.
Post reply on HN