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

241–250 of 279 posts

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#241

Post by zallarak »

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…

Here is a potential reason why some are upset. Its obvious that large corporations like Chevy, Clorox, Apple sell to Monstanto [and other corporations some could consider "bad" or whatever you want to label it]. But when startups do it [especially YC startups who I generally believe have smarter people involved relative to large corporations] it is felt because people generally hold them to higher standards [not just in situations like this, it applies for operational, financial and strategic measures as well]. I worked at a YC startup for a while, and saw some pretty generous things done by YC founders for society.

Another way to look at it (if it helps you understand the other perspective): You frequently see YC funded companies help each other out. Why do they do it? Is it just to accumulate more wealth/raise a valuation? Or is it because they've developed meaningful relationships and care for each other? I use this example to show how empathy and relationships can impact business decisions in a general sense, and that this same logic could be used to apply to a YC company NOT being proud of serving a large corporation known to use tactics that harm farmers in underdeveloped nations.

The fact that you use the term 'hold to a standard' at least implies that some could perceive the action as 'slimy'.

Finally, as someone wise once said, "be the change you want to see in the world" -- of course we hold YC companies to a higher standard :), many are made up of brilliant and compassionate individuals whose products make the world a better place. /cheese

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#242

Post by abbasmehdi »

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…

pg, I understand your frustration. The OP starts off in a tone that is way over the top, and the language is completely unnecessary. However, wouldn't you appreciate the distinction of a “partner” (a conscious relationship) from a “consumer” (unconscious)? They might be consumers of Apple/Chevy/Clorox products, but this seems more like a partnership.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#243

Post by nowarninglabel »

nirvana wrote: post #224
nowarninglabel wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

I would have agreed with you except you ignored that I did indicate a specific incidence, the fact they hold a Superfund site. I didn't want to get back and forth on points, as I knew pg would not wish to debate them.

I did a full research study on Monsanto as part of TA'ing for a Professor who taught "International Political Economy" of Food & Hunger. I'm about as informed on the subject as I'm going to get short of doing a graduate thesis.

Regardless of how you count the numbers, Monsanto has at least one super fund site, a public externality that we have to deal with. See here for a discussion of reasons you can count many more to be under their guise: http://projects.publicintegrity.org/superfund/report.aspx?ai...

Or just skip along to http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/WVSFN0305408.htm Or look at some of their past sites: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/d980309.htm

Furthermore, you can take a look at some of the litigation: http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/MONSANTOpressrel.htm

Or go straight to the meat of things, the case of McFarling vs. Monsanto: http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2008/artspdf/feb0803.pdf

Oh, and there's plenty more factual points of interest, this is just the tip of the iceberg shall I go on?

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#244

Post by projectileboy »

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…

Not always dumb, sometimes just angry. Maybe even with good reason. But that's still no excuse for the behavior.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#245

Post by oldstrangers »

GHFigs wrote: post #221
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.

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?

See my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3105322

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#246

Post by [deleted] »

GHFigs wrote: post #221
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.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#247

Post by csallen »

zallarak wrote: post #241
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…

Here is a potential reason why some are upset. Its obvious that large corporations like Chevy, Clorox, Apple sell to Monstanto [and other corporations some could consider "bad" or whatever you want to label it]. But when startups do it [especially YC startups who I generally believe have smarter people involved relative to large corporations] it is felt because people generally hold them to higher standards [not just…

> You frequently see YC funded companies help each other out. Why do they do it? Is it just to accumulate more wealth/raise a valuation? Or is it because they've developed meaningful relationships and care for each other?

Those two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people generally act out of self-interest. There are plenty of YC (and non-YC) companies who help each other out, yet whose founders have never met.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#248

Post by csallen »

jasonallen wrote: post #233
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, 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…

Can't speak for PG, but I'd say you lost him by #2. I never understood this kind of lump-everything-together thinking. It's overly idealistic, totally illogical, and almost always hypocritical.

Yes, boycotting a business is a common way to demonstrate your disapproval with some of their practices. However, it doesn't follow that doing business with a company implies condoning of all of their actions. I'm sorry, but there's no logic that supports such a conclusion.

And even if the logic existed, anyone who invoked it would be a glaring hypocrite. I assume you use a bank? Pay taxes to your government? Buy food, and shelter, and other products? Well you're undoubtedly a patron to at least a few entities who've committed atrocities. By your own logic, you condone each and every one of these attrocities. And by the op's eloquent logic, fuck you.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#249

Post by viggity »

cickpass_broken wrote: post #150
viggity wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds)" 1. Genetic manipulation of seeds is going to feed the world. And at the rate our population is growing, we're going to need it. 2. They weren't talking about genetic insertions, instead they said "Genome Analysis". Genome analysis helps plant breeders find plants that already have advantageous genes and try to quantify their effect of these genes. 3.…

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…

1. There is plenty of genetic diversity (aka hetrozygosity). The most credible evidence suggests that Colony Collapse Syndrome was caused by a disease, not GMO seed. Also, all of the seed companies take tremendous care to ensure that their patented biotech traits (BT) keep working in future, which is why they all have refuge requirements (meaning a farmer must plant at least X percent of their crop that isn't BT, which makes sure that various pests continue to breed with genes that will make their offspring susceptible to herbicide/pesticide treatment).

2. Corn has tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of genes and has roughly 22 million nucleotide base pairs. Having two breeders from two different companies come up with roughly the same plant interdependently is in the astronomical range.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#250

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN