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

Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

blog.danieldavies.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 228 posts

Re: Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

#21

Post by commandlinefan »

nostrademons wrote: post #7

Interesting that this quote was initially about stock options at tech companies. It turned out that stock options did become nearly universal in tech compensation, and companies that granted them outcompeted companies that did not. So the management that was ostensibly “doing a massive blag at the expense of shareholders” wasn’t really, time vindicated their practices and things like option backdating and not treatin…

> stock options did become nearly universal in tech compensation

Although I've noticed that options have been replaced more and more these days with RSU's (plain old grants) because options have a tendency to go "underwater", suggesting that they weren't all that great to begin with.

Re: Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

#22

Post by pjc50 »

nostrademons wrote: post #7

Interesting that this quote was initially about stock options at tech companies. It turned out that stock options did become nearly universal in tech compensation, and companies that granted them outcompeted companies that did not. So the management that was ostensibly “doing a massive blag at the expense of shareholders” wasn’t really, time vindicated their practices and things like option backdating and not treatin…

The specific lie discussed was the idea that granting options was not somehow an "expense" and could be excluded from the accounts.

(Google tells me this is a relevant summary of US GAAP https://carta.com/uk/en/learn/startups/equity-management/asc... )

Re: Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

#23

Post by lotsofpulp »

commandlinefan wrote: post #21
nostrademons wrote: post #7

Interesting that this quote was initially about stock options at tech companies. It turned out that stock options did become nearly universal in tech compensation, and companies that granted them outcompeted companies that did not. So the management that was ostensibly “doing a massive blag at the expense of shareholders” wasn’t really, time vindicated their practices and things like option backdating and not treatin…

> stock options did become nearly universal in tech compensation Although I've noticed that options have been replaced more and more these days with RSU's (plain old grants) because options have a tendency to go "underwater", suggesting that they weren't all that great to begin with.

It’s been standard advice on this forum for at least 10 years to value options at $0, and only consider cash comp + RSUs.

Re: Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

#24

Post by pjc50 »

sublinear wrote: post #9

> My reasoning was that Powell, Bush, Straw, etc, were clearly making false claims and therefore ought to be discounted completely, and that there were actually very few people who knew a bit about Iraq but were not fatally compromised in this manner who were making the WMD claim At the risk of missing the point, I have to say that knowing what we know now, this is a very poor heuristic. Predicting a lack of WMD was…

> WMD was not only correct by mere coincidence, but also irrelevant to the decisions made about the war in Iraq.

This was the stated purpose of the war! If Bush and Blair had said "there are no WMD in Iraq", the war would not have happened.

Re: Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

#27

Post by mnmnmn »

sublinear wrote: post #9

> My reasoning was that Powell, Bush, Straw, etc, were clearly making false claims and therefore ought to be discounted completely, and that there were actually very few people who knew a bit about Iraq but were not fatally compromised in this manner who were making the WMD claim At the risk of missing the point, I have to say that knowing what we know now, this is a very poor heuristic. Predicting a lack of WMD was…

[flagged]

Re: Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

#28

Post by mnmnmn »

appstorelottery wrote: post #13

Having worked in public advocacy advertising, I’d frame it like this: “Good ideas don’t need lies” is a compelling ideal but in practice, public acceptance isn’t a reliable signal of truth or societal benefit. It depends on incentives, narratives, and how information is presented. History shows that even harmful or suboptimal ideas (like coal power) can gain widespread support if presented persuasively, while genuine…

[dead]

Re: Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

#29

Post by jazz9k »

rawgabbit wrote: post #14
derrak wrote: post #6

Makes me think of academic papers that overhype their contribution. Also makes me think about AI hype.

For me the danger of AI is that it enables the surveillance state through facial recognition and the instantaneous aggregation of all my data. For "national security" reasons, I may be detained and denied of my rights if Palantir hallucinates. Who do I sue if Palantir decides I am an illegal?

Another danger I see is job loss. Who wants a world where the wealthy control AI and completely destroy the middle class.

Re: Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)

#30

Post by [deleted] »

pjc50 wrote: post #24
sublinear wrote: post #9

> My reasoning was that Powell, Bush, Straw, etc, were clearly making false claims and therefore ought to be discounted completely, and that there were actually very few people who knew a bit about Iraq but were not fatally compromised in this manner who were making the WMD claim At the risk of missing the point, I have to say that knowing what we know now, this is a very poor heuristic. Predicting a lack of WMD was…

> WMD was not only correct by mere coincidence, but also irrelevant to the decisions made about the war in Iraq. This was the stated purpose of the war! If Bush and Blair had said "there are no WMD in Iraq", the war would not have happened.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN