I Met Paul Graham Once • Hacker News Board

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#461

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:18 AM UTC

rockemsockem wrote: post #355

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm too lazy to search my comment history, but I wrote a comment on the original post about pg's essay that I did pretty much agree with what pg wrote, and so consequently I agree with most of what you wrote. But that said, I definitely could not ignore the timing of pg's essay, and it felt plain gross to me. It felt like a lazy, convenient pile-on at that moment, even if pg's position had been largely consistent for…

Idk if it's just me, but I voted blue in the last 3 presidential elections and I'm way more pissed about the Democrats than the Republicans right now. They failed the country, so hard, by making poor decisions which made them lose. They did this repeatedly, I think which decisions were the wrong ones is up for debate, but the surest one imo is Joe Biden running again instead of stepping aside and having a real primar…

Very much agree, but as I've found myself saying lately, "As much as I think the Democrats deserved to lose, I can't fathom thinking Trump deserved to win."

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#462

Post by amrocha » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:18 AM UTC

guelo wrote: post #95

bobosha wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My only consolation is knowing that I'm seeing the world more accurately than I used to. also known as growing older ;-)

At the end of the essay he says "I’d be a better startup founder today than I was in 2015" and my thought was, yea but YC is biased towards college kids. And then I saw your comment and I think something clicked for me. But maybe the ignorance and pliability of youth really is required to make the crazy bet on the startup dream.

She. She says she prefers to go by she or they in her essay.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#463

Post by megous » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:22 AM UTC

Nevermark wrote: post #102

There are a lot of things that bother me these days. But particularly some things that are pervasive, unnecessary, habitual amplifiers of disagreement. If someone is going to address extremists on an issue, don't just be anti-extremist. What empty courage is that? Address extremists by pushing the dialog back to the real issue. In this case, treating people who have been denigrated for centuries better. Otherwise, un…

> I.e. don't make strong arguments for or against one side of the Israeli-Palestine situation, without acknowledging the strong points you do accept as valid from both sides.

What Israel is doing to Palestinians last 77 years it exists is much worse than what Palestinians do to Israel on average from several perspectives by at least an order of magnitude or more (eg. amount of destruction and killing for sure, amount of subjugation, ...).

So wanting balance and giving one-sided defence to one side seems fair, regardless of any "strong points" on any side. If one has strong arguments, they should be used and voiced, because it's simply a numbers game in democracy.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#464

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:25 AM UTC

sbarre wrote: post #268

beardedwizard wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very underrated comment. Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law.

I dunno man.. When someone advocates for treating another person as "not human" or wants to deny them basic human rights, that's universally wrong in my book.

You're already doing it.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of these issues.

Couching the Outgroup's opinion on X as "erasing" or "killing" or "dehumanising" just precludes understanding.

Religious conservatives do this with abortion for instance. Is it constructive to say that Freedom of Choice advocates actually "support murdering babies"? Does it help, or is it just in-group signalling?

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#465

Post by prarro » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:25 AM UTC

djur wrote: post #458

prarro wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes on a pragmatic basis, if the coworker is male and gets upset at being referred to by "he", but it goes against your own personal beliefs to refer to him as "she", it's best just to refer to him by name and practise wording your sentences to be pronounless. And, where possible and not disadvantageous, to avoid situations where he's involved in your own work. With this approach, he's less likely to make a complaint…

Or you could just call people what they want to be called when it does not inconvenience you in the slightest.

[flagged]

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#466

Post by Nevermark » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:27 AM UTC

foxglacier wrote: post #442

gedpeck wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s mostly about willful acts of violence against innocents. This might be a nuance that is too subtle though. Bad acts and bad actors should be called out. Russia is the bad actor in the Ukrainian invasion. Hamas and IDF are bad actors in their conflict.

But then everyone is a bad actor. All the countries supplying arms to Ukraine are perpetuating the war and causing more deaths, so they're bad actors. As is Ukraine itself of course. You can't actually define that in way that has any use. It's ultimately just whatever your cultural influences led you to believe. People should just be honest and admit they're nationalists, other kinds of ideologists, or just trying to…

I think it makes much more sense, and is more productive, to reason about good and bad acts, than people.

Especially with regard to conglomerates of people, like whole nations, or whole governments. Having said that, some people and some groups do fall heavily on one side or the other. But most groups are a dynamic mix of players and situations, not good or bad in any rational or stable way.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#467

Post by mempko » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:28 AM UTC

guelo wrote: post #95

bobosha wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My only consolation is knowing that I'm seeing the world more accurately than I used to. also known as growing older ;-)

At the end of the essay he says "I’d be a better startup founder today than I was in 2015" and my thought was, yea but YC is biased towards college kids. And then I saw your comment and I think something clicked for me. But maybe the ignorance and pliability of youth really is required to make the crazy bet on the startup dream.

The youth has energy and are naive and will take a bad deal. They will work hard while others will make money off their work. Also, the author is not a man.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#468

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:29 AM UTC

timeon wrote: post #96

ethbr1 wrote: post #24

Great, cohesive, and clear essay! Hear hear. One thing that I think is underappreciated in our current times, that gets lost on both the left and the right sides -- an individual is more important than their identity . - A specific trans person can also be an asshole. - A specific white man can also be a saint. Extremists on both political sides will scream about the reasons one or the other of those statements is wr…

> gets lost on both the left and the right sides It gets lost because of this black/white US perspective on politics. If you were multiparty system there will be less identities in politics.

No, that just means the identities split into smaller groups that constantly fight for power within larger coalitions. Instead of Red vs Blue you get racial groupings and all sorts of subdivisions.

Lebanon is a good example of what happens when you try to enshrine smaller subdivisions than A vs B.

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#469

Post by coderc » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:31 AM UTC

djur wrote: post #458

prarro wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes on a pragmatic basis, if the coworker is male and gets upset at being referred to by "he", but it goes against your own personal beliefs to refer to him as "she", it's best just to refer to him by name and practise wording your sentences to be pronounless. And, where possible and not disadvantageous, to avoid situations where he's involved in your own work. With this approach, he's less likely to make a complaint…

Or you could just call people what they want to be called when it does not inconvenience you in the slightest.

Personally, agree with calling people what they want to be called. That said, here's a thought experiment: What if someone is inconvenienced? What if someone feels uncomfortable using pronouns that don't match the sex of the person? What about uncommon "neopronouns" like "zhe", "xe", or "fae"?

Whose comfort gets priority in this situation?

Re: I Met Paul Graham Once

#470

Post by snozolli » Tue, Jan 21, 2025, 1:32 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #424

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call it "losing my idealism," but, rather "understanding that everything is a lot more complex than my simple young mind could deal with." I'm probably more "idealistic" than I have ever been; it's just that I no longer have the silly "Let's just do this one simple thing" attitude. I've just found that getting places is always a lot more difficult than we think. Usually, it's people, and all their messy pe…

[flagged]

To demonstrate that you're in the "in group", it is not enough to simply support most of what they are into. You must take a potentially expensive position that demonstrates your absolute support.

That's exactly what you're doing with your own rhetoric, you know.