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

Superlogical

superlogical.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 504 posts

Re: Superlogical

#101

Post by an0malous »

fourseventy wrote: post #88
_verandaguy wrote: post #32

I really wish mitchellh wouldn't take funding from some of these people. Tobias Lutke in particular has chronically been on the wrong side of fundamental issues, and has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate (and in particular your "stake" in the democracy).

People are only allowed to take funding from investors whose politics align with yours?

They stated their preference, not that there should be a rule to enforce their preference.

Re: Superlogical

#102

Post by vrganj »

tills13 wrote: post #57
_verandaguy wrote: post #32

I really wish mitchellh wouldn't take funding from some of these people. Tobias Lutke in particular has chronically been on the wrong side of fundamental issues, and has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate (and in particular your "stake" in the democracy).

It's really unfortunate that the same traits that make you great at building a business (within capitalism) also often make you have psychopathic tendencies.

Kind of says something about the system we've chosen to run our societies on, huh?

Re: Superlogical

#104

Post by otterley »

_verandaguy wrote: post #32

I really wish mitchellh wouldn't take funding from some of these people. Tobias Lutke in particular has chronically been on the wrong side of fundamental issues, and has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate (and in particular your "stake" in the democracy).

Does Mitchell even need to take outside funding?

Re: Superlogical

#105

Post by tchalla »

hobofan wrote: post #15

I'm sorry to take it out on this specific announcement, as it just seems to be one of many "offenders", but why are the 15 investors listed on an announcement blog post of a semi-stealth startup? With most of them being VC or high-count angel investors, they can combined push whatever product is being built here into 200+ companies independent of whether it is good or not. What happened to the good old way of figurin…

> I'm excited to see what Superlogical will build, but the startup scene seems to grow more clique-y by the day.

Insert "It always was" meme

Re: Superlogical

#106

Post by win311fwg »

sailingparrot wrote: post #80
win311fwg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read it again you will notice that technically he thinks that, to satisfy those who believe the wealthy don't pay tax, Canada could use a system to encourage the wealthy to claim income, where that is incentivized by being able to vote. Often the wealthy have no need for income as they already have so much wealth and can easily borrow against that wealth as cash needs present themselves. It is believed (at lea…

Why would they care? The ultra-wealthy impact election through donations, which is many order of magnitudes more impactful than their personal ballot, even if you were to give them 10x weight. Elon Musk impact on the U.S. election wasn't because he drove to the booth.

[flagged]

Re: Superlogical

#107

Post by an0malous »

vrganj wrote: post #102
tills13 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really unfortunate that the same traits that make you great at building a business (within capitalism) also often make you have psychopathic tendencies.

Kind of says something about the system we've chosen to run our societies on, huh?

Now we’re ruled by an oligarchy of psychopaths and everyone’s wondering how this happened

Re: Superlogical

#108

Post by otterley »

hobofan wrote: post #15

I'm sorry to take it out on this specific announcement, as it just seems to be one of many "offenders", but why are the 15 investors listed on an announcement blog post of a semi-stealth startup? With most of them being VC or high-count angel investors, they can combined push whatever product is being built here into 200+ companies independent of whether it is good or not. What happened to the good old way of figurin…

> why else would a ~billionair that could easily fund it himself pull in that many investors that early

That was my question, too. Does Mitchell even need to take outside funding? I get why you would prefer to use others' poker chips instead of your own, especially if they're happy to give them to you, but usually funding comes with strings attached.

Re: Superlogical

#109

Post by bagxrvxpepzn »

_verandaguy wrote: post #32

I really wish mitchellh wouldn't take funding from some of these people. Tobias Lutke in particular has chronically been on the wrong side of fundamental issues, and has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate (and in particular your "stake" in the democracy).

[flagged]

Re: Superlogical

#110

Post by antonyt »

fourseventy wrote: post #88
_verandaguy wrote: post #32

I really wish mitchellh wouldn't take funding from some of these people. Tobias Lutke in particular has chronically been on the wrong side of fundamental issues, and has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate (and in particular your "stake" in the democracy).

People are only allowed to take funding from investors whose politics align with yours?

"I think this guy is dumb and wrong. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy is going to have outsized influence on a project I'm interested in. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy may profit from a project I'm interested in. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy is using his wealth to do dumb wrong things."

This is a normal and reasonable thought process.

Post reply on HN