Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics • Hacker News Board

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#211

Post by ebaysucks » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 12:17 AM UTC

run4yourlives wrote: post #199

pg wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Or: I disagree with you, therefore you are dumb. Outstanding. I up-voted the parent comment. I have been here for years. I consider myself to be a free market supporting, fiscally conservative and independent thinker. I have…

Agreed.

Those who think that Monsanto represents "apolitical business" are not my definition of smart.

Than again, apparantly I'm one of the dumb ones.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#212

Post by nowarninglabel » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 12:18 AM UTC

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…

Mr. Graham, wow, this is rather disappointing to hear. You wish to frame a discussion through ad hominem instead of on the merits. For what it's worth I am apolitical, and have little interest in provoking controversy, but that doesn't mean I wish to see the promotion of a company which pushes injustice across the world.

Previously, I had looked up to you as a bit of a hero, now my opinion of you has dived quite low. I would not have minded if you disagreed with the merits of what Monsanto and Monsanto's customers choose to do. However, referring to people as dumb, for upvoting what is essentially a very well held and defensible position is a very weak thing to do. There are lots of arguments to be made against Monsanto, not the least of which is its Superfund environmental disaster sites.

The point is, I am informed, I know exactly what I am against, and have every reason to be outraged at the injustice perpetrated by Monsanto. This is furthered by needing to make the same arguments against Monsanto at my own company. If we've gotten to the point where we can't be outraged against injustice, then we may as well be heartless automatons.

To summarily dismiss them in this way and at the same time attack the intelligence of your readers is, well, reprehensible. Call me dumb if you will, I won't make arguments to the level of my own intelligence, but know that you have invalidated every reason to see you as a role model.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#213

Post by ForrestN » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 12:18 AM UTC

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…

I think sometimes tone is important. Both jubilantly celebrating a massive association with an incredibly awful company, and condescending to users by calling them stupid, don't really seem to serve anyone.

The problem isn't that they aren't spinning right, the problem is that it's pretty obvious that Cloudant doesn't care about working with evil companies, and that you're feeling somewhat disdainful of a lot of your users.

Both are unbecoming, and I think that's all people are trying to reflect (even if they are somewhat confused in how they frame their statements). People want to believe that you all aren't just smart, that you're good guys, so to speak, ie. that all the talk about "being good" isn't opportunistic, or that you aren't mean and reactive. I don't think either of those things matter particularly, and maybe they aren't germane to the kinds of conversations you'd hoped to be having, but I understand the impulse.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#214

Post by rohern » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:10 AM UTC

oldstrangers wrote: post #206

pg wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're selling them data analysis. I cannot find in that a great moral question or hazard. I'm sure when Monsanto employees go about their daily lives they also are sold food, clothes, computers, cell phones...

Nick O'Niell's analysis of Paul Graham's comment is nonsensical:

"He’s actively suggesting the idea that because other people are doing it (people with big brand names), it’s ok for a YCombinator company to do it as well."

Putting aside the rape of the English language going on in that sentence --'actively suggesting'? --, it is false in its claims. Paul pointed out that if the moral standard is that companies who sell things to nasty companies are committing a moral offense, then we need to apply this standard massively, to essentially every company that exists. Targeting Cloudant specifically is unfair and seems arbitrary.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#215

Post by rohern » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:15 AM UTC

oldstrangers wrote: post #165

pg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant. If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you're saying is fuck the entire corporate world, because I'm sure Monsanto buys Apple computers and Chevrolets and Clorox too. It's sort of ridiculous to hold Cloudant to a standard that essentially zero other companies meet. There are frequently inane comm…

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…

I see. It would have been preferable for Cloudant to do business with Monsanto as long as they never talked about it.

What possible difference could that make in the moral calculus? They're a small company that has found financial security in their contract, that's why they are making it public it.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#216

Post by rohern » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:19 AM UTC

run4yourlives wrote: post #93

pg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant. If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you're saying is fuck the entire corporate world, because I'm sure Monsanto buys Apple computers and Chevrolets and Clorox too. It's sort of ridiculous to hold Cloudant to a standard that essentially zero other companies meet. There are frequently inane comm…

That's a bit of a cop-out. There's a difference between company A purchasing some of your product and actively bidding to be the sole-source supplier to a major project. As they put it, "Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new, company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business: the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricu…

The large-scale computational analysis of genomes both animal and vegetable is going to create an epoch in which it will be possible to cure or make chronic cancer, HIV, and some genetic disorders. Whether or not Monsanto's the devil, that large companies are adopting this technology and providing financial succor to the companies creating the technologies used in this analysis is of benefit to everyone.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#217

Post by rohern » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:20 AM UTC

vej wrote: post #53

Logged on here for the first time in 417 days to say: Fuck you Cloudant. Also, shame on YC for allowing this to happen.

Give us another 417 days of your silence.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#218

Post by oldstrangers » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:30 AM UTC

rohern wrote: post #214

oldstrangers wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're selling them data analysis. I cannot find in that a great moral question or hazard. I'm sure when Monsanto employees go about their daily lives they also are sold food, clothes, computers, cell phones... Nick O'Niell's analysis of Paul Graham's comment is nonsensical: "He’s actively suggesting the idea that because other people are doing it (people with big brand names), it’s ok for a YCombinator company to d…

"They're selling them data analysis."

That's rather disingenuous. Let's let them explain it:

"Monsanto has chosen Cloudant to be the core of their new genome analysis platform.

Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new, company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business: the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops. The data & reporting interfaces will be used across Monsanto and should be instrumental in the making of key business decisions."

"We’ve been working with them for a few weeks now and we couldn’t be more thrilled with the partnership."

Cloudant has placed themselves at the very heart of the Monsanto empire. They are the foundation and core of Monsanto's most essential operations. That goes above and beyond simply selling someone something. They are partners.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#219

Post by deea » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:34 AM UTC

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…

This statement is much worse than Cloudant having Monsanto as a client which I support.

And I'm a big critic of Monsanto but to suggest being socially aware is "politically shallow" is insulting and stupid. You should be encouraging us to be socially and politically engaged and fighting for responsible corporate governance.

You seem out of touch with the real world.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#220

Post by ascendant » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:39 AM UTC

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…

Of course you're on the side of this, you stand to make money from it so anyone that can't see that is "dumb". Hooray for chucking your morals chasing the almighty dollar, eh?