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

'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

missionlocal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 558 posts

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#531

Post by refurb »

chomskyole wrote: post #336
refurb wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, when people apologize for things we generally move on since the person acknowledge their error. Let’s be honest, it’s blowing up because the California political machine is threatened by this guy, and tearing him down for a small transgression means they’ll hold onto the reins of power even longer.

A death threat by one of the richest persons = A small transgression when they apologise after the fact Seriously?

Nobody would seriously take that as a death threat. No one.

But if you’re a politician, it makes sense to claim you “fear for your life”.

Like I said, they want to get rid of this guy since he’s a political opponent.

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#532

Post by unsupp0rted »

jncfhnb wrote: post #487
tempsy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He expects everyone else to take heat from him but can’t handle the tiniest bit of criticism direct at him It’s a bit rich

Does he really expect people to take heat from him?

If anything, people who rant on social media expect to be ignored or blocked.

They wouldn’t rant like that in real life on a bus with a captive audience.

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#534

Post by nonrandomstring »

shuckles wrote: post #528
nonrandomstring wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading this article by Rebecca Solnit [0] posted on HN here [1] absolutely helped me make sense of the Garry Tan story, and what is going on in Californian politics. It's well worth reading, but is a long and initially tedious article bemoaning the passing of a gentler, humane culture. Then about halfway through it grew some balls and teeth, and frankly I found it shocking. I had no idea California was this degenera…

If you’re trying to learn about California and San Francisco from Solnit, you are far down the wrong path. My favorite part of that incoherent article was how Solnit takes credit for social movements that ended decades before she moved to San Francisco. Pure clout chasing by a clueless white feminist.

Was there something you particularly disagreed with, other than the gender and skin colour of the author?

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#535

Post by rayiner »

neon_electro wrote: post #485
rayiner wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Citizens United says that something that’s undeniably speech—a movie about a politician—can’t be suppressed merely because the speakers pay for it through the vehicle of a corporation. What do you think is incorrect about that?

If Citizens United has gone the other way, the Trump administration would have been able, for example, to order Facebook to suppress posts about COVID death tolls near the election.

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#536

Post by chiefalchemist »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #507
chiefalchemist wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: This is a general comment and not intended forgive or incriminate anyone. Perhaps. The thing is, if we only look for leaders who have never erred (read: never fallen and gotten up) we end up with (for example) our "representatives" in Washington DC. That is, generally spineless, middle of the road, etc. The word beige comes to mind. That is, we end up with "leaders" without the toolbox of experiences necessary…

>What are our collective priorities? Human leaders capable of leading humans? Or perfection which effectively translates to no edges, risk adverse, and ultimately flacid and unfollowable? Sure, I'd take humans leading humans. Probably is we're in an era of humans trying to exploit other humans to appeal to semi-human stock market dynamics (likely funded by rich humans who have much better financial security). I want…

Collective is to say this isn't Left or Right issue. We elected the electable. That is, those who campaign best. That doesn't mean they'll be great representatives. That doesn't mean they're capable of leading. If fact, we've normalized a bastardized definition of leader and apply that label without shame.

We see this time and again. And yet every election cycle we go back for - and/or are only given - more of the same.

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#537

Post by gadders »

romwell wrote: post #492
gadders wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>However, if XXX of party YYY subsequently starts getting death threats or other harrassment as a result of this statement being made, there is a problem. How can you control that, though? Are people responsible for the mental state of all their followers? Or do they have to ensure that every utterance is so milquetoast that no action would ever come of it? I'd have less of an issue if these rules were to be applied…

>How can you control that, though? Are people responsible for the mental state of all their followers? No. There is an extent, however, to which leaders are responsible for the actions of their followers. They know what audience they're speaking to. >Or do they have to ensure that every utterance is so milquetoast that no action would ever come of it? False dichotomy. They have to not encourage their followers to com…

>>Perhaps with a documented track record of spikes in violence following public statements?

Yes, like Maxine Waters committing "stochastic terrorism" against the Supreme Court.

Or maybe you're talking about BLM?

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#538

Post by rayiner »

anigbrowl wrote: post #177
rayiner wrote: post #4

> Tan, for his part, apologized over the weekend, noting that his post was a reference to a Tupac Shakur lyric How famous does someone have to be joke about a politician dying before it’s a problem? Tan is less famous than Charlie Sheen or Johnny Depp, who have joked about Trump dying. Also, from Wikipedia: “Tan supported the 2022 recall campaign against progressive San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin. Tan d…

Tan blamed Boudin for physical attacks on Asians.” There’s a fair argument that Tan is joking about violence against people whose policies are facilitating actual violence. Were that so, why would there be a rise in crime targeted at Asians across the the US in recent years? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-year-after-atlanta-and...

Boudin is just one example of the trend of progressive prosecutors all over the country. And Asians tend to be the victims of any reduction in law and order, because they are seen as easy targets by gangs and a large fraction of them live in areas where gangs operate. They also tend to own or work at small businesses in the place affected by the 2020 riots. If crime goes up in New York City, for example, the Bangladeshi is in Jamaica are going to be hit disproportionately hard.

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#539

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

kyleamazza wrote: post #526
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians call for the death of their opponents all the time. See Lyndsey Graham's recent tweet calling for an attack on Iran.

That's a government person calling for an attack on another government. This is a citizen calling for an attack on a group of individuals, government-involved or not. It's not even remotely the same. It's literally illegal to give death threats (not that I think this qualifies as a particularly serious one). But that's the difference between this and your argument with politicians rattling sabres. (Just to make it cl…

Yeah, what Lyndsey Graham said is infinitely worse

Re: 'Stupid,' 'shameful:' Tech workers on Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan's rant

#540

Post by vlovich123 »

greenie_beans wrote: post #509
vlovich123 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That story is a bit dated. The California laws are forcing municipalities like SF to fix the review process and in fact a new plan was submitted in December and initially rejected before an updated plan was submitted at the end of December. The hope is that this fixes things and if it doesn’t SF is at risk of losing its zoning powers wholesale which may not be such a bad idea.

the story might be dated but the research that drove the story isn't dated, that's what i was trying to share. the action from the state and the municipalities was informed by a research project from UC Berkeley.

Correct, I was only highlighting that the news story itself is way late and not really relevant as news. The research around zoning laws and their impact on housing development was known probably 5-10 years ago if not more, the state law changes passed within the past 1-2 years ago, and we are in the middle of the time period of the state enforcing all municipalities to conform or lose zoning privileges and SF nominally claims to have ratified changes to be conformant (the initial plan was rejected by the state and they submitted a revision at the deadline)
Post reply on HN