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

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#231

Post by rjstatic » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 3:27 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…

Paul, while I do see your point, you aren't looking deep enough here. Please let me explain.

Yes, this comment is missing some crucial content, yet, it is not a contentless comment as proven by the up votes. It is a war cry against those who seek to end this world in a fit of greed. It seems contentless to you because you are unaware of the game Monsanto is playing. I'm not just talking about giving a few kids Asthma by pumping chemicals into the air, I'm talking about risking the collapse of our life support systems for the sake of profit. Please read up on Monsanto, our survival depends on us to do the right thing. http://www.right2knowmarch.org/about-2/educational-links/

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#232

Post by oldstrangers » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 3:35 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #226

oldstrangers wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I'm not sure how many more ways I can break this down for you. I figured my previous comment was pretty clear.

Asserting that Cloudant is only selling Monsanto a simple data analysis is disingenuous, as clearly proven by Cloudant's own press release where they state how significant their partnership with Monsanto is. Partnership is a key word here.

Selling someone a service like Google Analytics (random example) is a lot different than partnering with a company for multiple weeks and shaping the entire core functionality of a company around your collaborative efforts. Even more so is saying that this partnership will help shape the way the company fundamentally does business.

Like I said, its disingenuous to downplay Cloudant's role, considering how highly they emphasized said role.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#233

Post by jasonallen » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 3:44 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…

Paul, branding us as "dumb" for reasoning this way seems beneath you. Where, in this line of reasoning, do we diverge?

1. Monsanto is a despicable company.

2. By "working closely", Cloudant implicitly condones Monsanto's ethics.

3. By announcing it publicly, Cloudant goes beyond condoning Monsanto's ethics and appear to actively support Monsanto's actions.

That's roughly my line of reasoning. Are losing each other at #1, #2 or #3?

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#234

Post by dasil003 » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 4:11 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #225

dasil003 wrote: post #184

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. 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.

Then you shouldn't assume that somebody who is vitriolic about the issue is automatically a liberal wacko.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#235

Post by pbreit » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 4:24 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 disagree. The rant contained at least as much content as a press release announcing one new customer. And I think the disappointment has to do more with the boasting than the simple customer relationship.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#236

Post by pbreit » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 4:48 AM UTC

andylei wrote: post #175

SkyMarshal wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have time to get into that discussion, but if you google "the most evil company in the world" you'll see they're fighting it out with De Beers and one or two others for the top spot. There's also plenty on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto They're basically 80s/90s Microsoft at its worst, but in agriculture of both the developed and developing world (the latter being particularly heinous).

i'm seeing literally dozens of comments saying that it monsanto is the most evil company that exists, and literally, not one comment giving a single concrete reason why it is. why is hitler evil? i can tell you in 8 words. he ordered the deaths of millions of people. why is monsanto evil? seriously, name ONE thing that makes them evil.

Monsanto knowingly engages in unethical activities that could jeopardize large portions of the world's food supply.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#237

Post by run4yourlives » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 5:09 AM UTC

rohern wrote: post #216

run4yourlives wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In essense, the ends justify the means.

I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain the major ethical quandaries that arise from this type of thinking.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#238

Post by phamilton » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 5:24 AM UTC

Preface: I would like to take the liberty of starting a thread of discussion about the technical merits of the press release. Any non technical concerns can be posted under someone else's comment please.

What does this mean for a me as a hacker?

Someone brought up the huge benefit of large scale deployment. I think that's a very interesting point. If Cloudant can get their system to scale to meet their large customer's needs, the overall experience for all clients should be streamlined.

How would such a big client affect their pricing? Would they be able to price the lower tiers more aggressively?

What other side effects does this press release have for their customers?

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#239

Post by sitkack » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 6:19 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #202

sitkack wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You are being over pedantic. This isn't a debate, which btw. Debates aren't about arriving at the truth, they are about winning arguments by whatever means necessary.

Much like business.

Do you read this? http://reason.com/

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#240

Post by csallen » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 6:52 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…

You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody said that taking a particular side of a debate makes you dumb. This isn't about what side you take, it's about how you choose to debate.

HN used to be a place that cared deeply about conversing in a civil, responsible, and educational manner. Whether or not you agree with the sentiments expressed in the parent comment, the fact is that it doesn't meet those standards. Even if the logic wasn't childish ("fuck X by association", really?), the comment does little to substantiate its opinions, or to educate those who aren't aware of the issue. In other words, it's a populist comment expressly made to pander to those who are already in agreement.

Upvoting said comment means either (a) you haven't even considered the importance of having a quality discussion, (b) you've considered it but in this case you don't care, or (c) you actually think it's a high quality comment. The fact that the comment is sitting pretty at the top of the page means that people have, en masse, fallen into one of these categories. Like it or not, A and C are simply dumber than the HN of old, and B is more confrontational.