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

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#221

Post by GHFigs » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:46 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.

It's an issue of ethics, morality and emotion.

If that's the case, why didn't you address the issue with the kind of gravity and seriousness that such an issue demands instead of resting on such a vapid comment as the one which our fellow readers have so lavished with approbation? Would anybody have been worse off if you had?

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#222

Post by nirvana » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:50 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…

When I attended the Startup School in 2007, I had to apply. I was sure I wasn't going to get in, but I did, and when I got there I understood that the application wasn't elitist, it was because the venue was pretty fixed in size... and the quality of the event was much different due to this (relatively light) filter you'd applied.

I think hacker news would be much different if you applied a similar filter.

If everyone here were someone sincerely interested in doing a startup, who believed that it was moral to make money by improving people's lives, and believed that technological innovation was a good way to do it, then I think the site would be much different.

The early quality has turned HN into a popular source for a certain segment of news. But that has diluted it as an effective community.

Occasionally there's been talk of doing another site along these lines, but the right kind of filter wasn't obvious.

I think that it is clear what the right kind of filter is-- an application form like the Startup School one.

I don't know what your intentions are for HN going forward, if you have any interest in making significant changes or not. After Nirvana (my open source web platform project) is released, and my startups MVP is done, I intend to write software for a community of startup founders and see if we can make a go of it.

But you have a much bigger following. I think if you liked this idea, picking a hundred or so of the commenters you liked the best from the site would enable rapid evaluation of such applications (especially if the applications were relatively short). However, it might be too easy to game such a system.

But that's where my thoughts are. I always like to try and propose a solution when I see a problem, even if I am not sure my solution will work.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#223

Post by Sato » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 1:51 AM UTC

pg wrote: post #70

oldstrangers wrote: post #2

Fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck Cloudant. "We’ve been working with them for a few weeks now and we couldn’t be more thrilled with the partnership." Thrilled? I guess money is thrilling. "The data & reporting interfaces will be used across Monsanto and should be instrumental in the making of key business decisions." Key business decisions like which small farmer to sue into oblivion? Or what third world nation…

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…

I rather see freedom from censorship here.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#224

Post by nirvana » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 2:02 AM UTC

nowarninglabel wrote: post #212

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…

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.…

If you were apolitical, you wouldn't see monsanto as "a company which pushes injustice across the world".

Notice that this thread is full of such disparaging assertions, but no actual details, no citations, and the closest anyone gets is to pointing to people who have a very clear political agenda who make accusations against monsanto.

"what is essentially a very well held and defensible position"

I think this is what he's referring to as "dumb". This is not a "defensible" position because it isn't a fact, it is merely a dislike. As for "very well held" its unclear what you mean, except maybe you mean "widely held". I think it is dumb to assume that just because a lot of people say the same thing about something, that means they are right, especially when they cannot go into details, and what they are saying is just broad political assertions.

"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."

If you're informed, why aren't you specific? Even when describing what you're outraged, the best you can say is "injustice". Such a weak word, and what does it really mean anyway? They did something you don't like?

Wendy's screwed up my order the other day, giving me someone else's food, and they didn't give me a coupon to compensate. Oh, the injustice! Sure, that's silly, but at least I described specifically what they did wrong!

You're "outraged" at something you can't even describe. Yet you're "apolitical". Really?

Personally, I'm so tired of people going around repeating things they heard from other people, without doing any investigation or applying a legitimate moral compass to the issue.

This leads to "heartless automatons"... people who are easily controlled by media outlets. "Hate walmart!" (but don't hate Target, they're just the same, only they're unionized, and therefore they're not evil.) "Blame Wall Street!" (But ignore the government that, via regulation, forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't repaying them, claiming that to do otherwise was "racist".) etc. etc. etc.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#225

Post by nirvana » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 2:14 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #184

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'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. You're just creating two stereotypes and shoving peop…

"rather than going and educating yourself about what they do"

Your assumption that I'm not educated about the issue is in error.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#226

Post by nirvana » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 2:15 AM UTC

oldstrangers wrote: post #218

rohern wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cro…

Rohern makes a statement, you call it disingenuous, and then "prove" it by quoting the company making the same statement.

He's downvoted to the point of being grey while you are not. My comments here are down voted without replies.

I think this proves Mr. Graham's and my point.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#227

Post by castewart » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 2:21 AM UTC

WiseWeasel wrote: post #105

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…

You won't see Apple, GM or Clorox touting a partnership with Monsanto, as they are aware of the negative impact it would have on their own brand. I think there is a good lesson in this for other companies.

We don't discuss PR on HN. Public relations is beneath PG.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#228

Post by william42 » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 2:32 AM UTC

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…

Monsanto is one of the biggest pushers for and beneficiaries of corn subsidies, and corn subsidies are one of the biggest examples of corporate welfare in existence.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#229

Post by protomyth » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 2:55 AM UTC

WiseWeasel wrote: post #62

glimcat wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a problem to solve with a disruptive startup. Got any actionable ideas?

Smarter and cheaper robots. If the cost of labor for growing food organically on a large scale could be reduced, it would have a disruptive impact on conventional agriculture.

Have you actually worked on a modern farm?

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#230

Post by WiseWeasel » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 3:04 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #229

WiseWeasel wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smarter and cheaper robots. If the cost of labor for growing food organically on a large scale could be reduced, it would have a disruptive impact on conventional agriculture.

Have you actually worked on a modern farm?

I have, though not any large-scale intensive farming operations. I'm talking about robots with the dexterity and intelligence to replace human labor all but completely, to allow a large or small farm operator to manage pests and weeds without the use of hazardous chemicals.