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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: undefined

#61

Post by tolerance »

wat10000 wrote: post #53
tolerance wrote: post #31

Everyone talking about this being out of touch with the present and how figures in proximity to Graham don’t fit the description of nice he’s referring to should think about this passage: > For most of history success meant control of scarce resources. One got that by fighting, whether literally in the case of pastoral nomads driving hunter-gatherers into marginal lands, or metaphorically in the case of Gilded Age fi…

Has anything changed? He's not correct about the past metric always being about zero-sum games. Railroads are pretty obviously not zero-sum, and wars are generally negative-sum. How many successful merchants existed in ancient times? I'm sure there were plenty. And there's plenty of zero-sum in success today. Politics is the most obvious example. I can't be a Senator without excluding someone else from being a Senato…

Let’s disregard your first three paragraphs that treat his point about zero-sum games categorically. He does hedge against that interpretation in the passages I referenced.

> This looks like an example of hackers thinking they're fundamentally changing the world, when all that's happening is that they're working in an area that's too small for the wider world to care very much yet. Back when the internet was shiny and new, there was all this talk of how it was going to change the world with the free flow of information. Censorship would fall, regulation would be impossible, and the internet would be a bastion of freedom. Well, it only looked that way because governments took a while to start actually caring about the internet. Once they did, it turns out the internet is like everything else: the people with guns ultimately get to decide what you do if they want to.

Think about the names tied to Graham, the ones who appear in this very essay even. I think you’re making a gross understatement here—a slight even—of the massive influence of the likes of Dan Gackle.

Re: undefined

#62

Post by Dig1t »

konmok wrote: post #56
Dig1t wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Elon Musks own daughter is attacking him online. Think about that. If you read Walter Isaacson's book on Musk it's pretty clear that his kids do love him, he does care for them well, and that his "daughter" fell into pretty extremist ideology.

Why the scare quotes? Would you like to be more explicit about which ideology you think she fell into, and why you consider it extremist? edit: this book? https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/1/23895069/walter-isaacson-...

Look her up on TikTok, she’s not mentally well. Extreme leftist ideology is what I’m talking about.

You should read the book, it’s pretty good. Isaacson is not at all biased towards Musk, he has a lot of critical things to say about him. The author is one of the most trusted and thorough biographers of his generation and is known for extensive primary-source research.

This verge article is cope, they are a very politically biased organization. Linking to them is the equivalent of me linking to Fox News and trying to pass it off as unbiased.

Also, those are not scare quotes. His “daughter” is a man pretending to be a woman because of mental illness and extremist ideology.

Re: undefined

#63

Post by wat10000 »

surgical_fire wrote: post #51

> Startups don't win by attacking. They win by transcending. There are exceptions of course, but usually the way to win is to race ahead, not to stop and fight. > Another reason mean founders lose is that they can't get the best people to work for them. They can hire people who will put up with them because they need a job. But the best people have other options. A mean person can't convince the best people to work f…

It's tremendously naive.

First, there's this assumption that "startups" are what really matter. Sorry, pg, I know you've made a nice career out of them, but startups aren't very significant.

Then the part you quoted assumes that "the best people" are never themselves mean. There's plenty of smart, mean people who might gravitate towards other mean people. And plenty of really good people will put up with meanness if they believe in the mission. Just read all the stories about the early days of Apple. Jobs was a terror, but his people believed they were changing the world and they accepted Jobs as a necessary part of it.

pg is basically sitting in a tiny isolated island village and saying, "Isn't it amazing how every successful person on the planet is also a devoted worshipper of the Volcano God?"

Re: undefined

#64

Post by wat10000 »

Herring wrote: post #60
wat10000 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that why a lot of us went into tech in the first place, because other people's minds are weird and confusing and they keep doing inexplicable stuff like saying things that actually mean something totally different, or not thinking about how something works when trying to use it?

Read more, like biographies and good fiction. Meditate and see into yourself. Understanding minds is a skill like any other, and gets better with practice.

There's understanding, and there's understanding.

I think I'm pretty decent at understanding people these days, as in predicting how they'll react to things, figuring out what they want, that sort of thing.

But I don't understand it on a fundamental level, the way I understand something like math. I have a decent grasp of the game, but I don't understand why the rules of the game are what they are. I get the impression this is how a lot of people feel about math, or computers. They know you can compute a 20% tip by sliding the decimal point over and doubling, but it's just a procedure they follow, they don't understand it.

I've read and thought and interacted plenty. This has built up the skill just fine, but the fundamental understanding is something I don't think will ever come.

Re: undefined

#65

Post by SirensOfTitan »

wat10000 wrote: post #58
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #41

> It struck me recently how few of the most successful people I know are mean. There are exceptions, but remarkably few. *mean to Paul Graham. I’ve worked with a lot of mean people in important positions in my career, and they all have a kind, charismatic side when they need to. Those same people are awful to subordinates or people that can’t do something for them. Paul is high value to many people, so they treat him…

Isn't that why a lot of us went into tech in the first place, because other people's minds are weird and confusing and they keep doing inexplicable stuff like saying things that actually mean something totally different, or not thinking about how something works when trying to use it?

Yeah, and I think that avoidance is the cardinal sin of the modern world. You can’t avoid the dissonance between how a person acts and what they say or want to be. This is especially true within yourself: you can’t ignore what James Hillman might call the “multitudes of the soul” because the pot eventually boils over, and you wonder why you cannot measure up to this ideal version of yourself.

When I’ve been mean at work, and I’ve had many moments, I’m often unsure where it comes from: why did I react that way? It’s not what I wanted. And I’ve been fortunate to be humbled so much in my life and career, now perhaps more than ever, that I’m forced to juggle with the parts of myself that I’ve left in the shadows to my own detriment. I think this is the central paradox of a lot of folks like Graham: when you have capital, even your losses can be manufactured to be wins, and so you become estranged from dissolution and decay and humbling necessary to be born again into someone with fresh perspective.

I think Jung said something like: it is better to be yourself and accept the consequences of being you versus forcing yourself into a mold of what you or others think you ought to be. And often this means engaging deeply with what you’re avoiding and coming to terms with why.

Re: undefined

#66

Post by Herring »

wat10000 wrote: post #64
Herring wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read more, like biographies and good fiction. Meditate and see into yourself. Understanding minds is a skill like any other, and gets better with practice.

There's understanding, and there's understanding. I think I'm pretty decent at understanding people these days, as in predicting how they'll react to things, figuring out what they want, that sort of thing. But I don't understand it on a fundamental level, the way I understand something like math. I have a decent grasp of the game, but I don't understand why the rules of the game are what they are. I get the impressi…

And I’m telling you that’s not a rare sentiment. I do a lot of zen, and one famous teacher talks about feeling disconnected from people for a long time. I’m not saying you have to do anything, it’s your life, but just don’t assume it’s something unique or permanent.

Re: undefined

#67

Post by akudha »

humannature1 wrote: post #20

I wish this was true. Yet, I think we all have some skin in the game to why this article rings false. When it comes to getting an advantage, people often look the other way at meanness. For example, it’s easy to complain about how Amazon treats their employees. Yet, we choose to buy from Amazon because it’s convenient, cheap, and everyone else is doing it. We might see an organization treat someone else unfairly but…

It is very time consuming, tiring and takes effort to do principled shopping. For most people, convenience and price are more important than principles. I can’t think of many (any?) big companies that I’d be happy to give my money to, they all behave badly - only question is the degree to which each one behaves badly.

This isn’t complaining, just pointing out the reality - we actually don’t have as many options as we think we do. If one has extra money, they can spend a little more and shop at smaller but expensive places, most people are going to shop at Walmart or Amazon

Re: undefined

#68

Post by sailfast »

stickfigure wrote: post #35
humannature1 wrote: post #20

I wish this was true. Yet, I think we all have some skin in the game to why this article rings false. When it comes to getting an advantage, people often look the other way at meanness. For example, it’s easy to complain about how Amazon treats their employees. Yet, we choose to buy from Amazon because it’s convenient, cheap, and everyone else is doing it. We might see an organization treat someone else unfairly but…

I don't think Amazon treats their employees badly. Warehouse workers aren't compensated like software engineers, but what do you expect? I'm sure there are shitty managers at Amazon (in warehouses and in software) but by and large I believe blue collar Amazon workers have it about as well as blue collar workers everywhere. Maybe better. I don't really see the problem here.

What if I mentioned to you that a solid chunk of those employees could be given a couple of shares of stock that made a few lucky people billionaires - some that still work there - and it would be a life-changing amount of money?

In addition to some truly gnarly stories / conditions and their staunch anti-Union stance it is also a relativity issue. There is much to go around but it’s not always spread around with consideration for your employees. And there really isn’t a good reason for that in my opinion.

I hear the argument “well I guess they don’t deliver as much value / leverage for the company as others”. I get it, but at a certain point that rings as a completely hollow and greedy justification. Where that is for you is subjective. But for me? Where there are billionaires there is room for generosity.

Re: undefined

#69

Post by sailfast »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #42
stickfigure wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Amazon treats their employees badly. Warehouse workers aren't compensated like software engineers, but what do you expect? I'm sure there are shitty managers at Amazon (in warehouses and in software) but by and large I believe blue collar Amazon workers have it about as well as blue collar workers everywhere. Maybe better. I don't really see the problem here.

The issue isn't about pay. It's about measuring so aggressively and turning the screws until you extract every last bit of value out of someone. If a company is measuring the duration and frequency of bathroom breaks (to pick one of many examples that's been highlighted in the press), something has gone fundamentally wrong.

This. Humans are people, not machines. They are your neighbors. They deserve dignity. Exploiting people’s desperation for full employment is wrong.

Re: undefined

#70

Post by wat10000 »

tolerance wrote: post #61
wat10000 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anything changed? He's not correct about the past metric always being about zero-sum games. Railroads are pretty obviously not zero-sum, and wars are generally negative-sum. How many successful merchants existed in ancient times? I'm sure there were plenty. And there's plenty of zero-sum in success today. Politics is the most obvious example. I can't be a Senator without excluding someone else from being a Senato…

Let’s disregard your first three paragraphs that treat his point about zero-sum games categorically. He does hedge against that interpretation in the passages I referenced. > This looks like an example of hackers thinking they're fundamentally changing the world, when all that's happening is that they're working in an area that's too small for the wider world to care very much yet. Back when the internet was shiny an…

Sorry, I don't really know what point you're making. I have no idea what "the massive influence of the likes of Dan Gackle" is referring to. Does he do something important besides run HN? Because running HN is important to the likes of us, but is utterly insignificant for the wider world.
Post reply on HN