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

A Reminder To Investors

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 290 posts

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#171

Post by dsirijus »

rayiner wrote: post #154
dsirijus wrote: post #129

Not insignificant, but major amount of relationships and subsequent marriages have sprung from flirts and advances at work, obviously frequently including power-disbalanced positions. [1] While this particular (and pretty stringent at that) declaration of code of conduct is probably conducive to business and PR goals of YC, I'm far from convinced it will be advancing health of relationships between individuals concer…

YC isn't about building romantic relationships, it's about building companies. Mixing business and romance is a losing proposition for women, because the latter taints absolutely everything. One of the awesome things about being a guy is that I can look around at, e.g., my classmates from grad school, and be quite sure that their "mental file" of me has a lot more about my intellect and character than about my looks.…

I'm actually pro this blanket cover, but I just see it as band-aid with pretty unclear non-business related consequences.

As for you argument, I'm considering looks an asset to be employed alongside intellect, presentation/communication skills. I mean, I wouldn't want to live in a business enviroment where we're assigned numbers as our names, modulate our voices to sound the same, and use same unisex avatars in a VR-powered business conference all the time. Would you? That would alleviate all possible business-related concerns of yours.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#172

Post by Jun8 »

tptacek wrote: post #162
yummyfajitas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a translation of Altman's message from powertalk into english: "Dear feminists and rabble rousers, we recognize your power. We are on your team. We will genuflect in the direction of those things you consider holy. Please don't target us." (For those unfamiliar with the term, "powertalk" is the in-group language of powerful people.) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i... YC is attempt…

This is a really unfortunate comment. The actual points it makes are superficial and, unusually for you, not backed by anything other than anecdote. It's mean-spirited. And most importantly, it's written in a way that can't possibly persuade anyone who isn't already on your side. You're too smart to believe you're trying to communicate here, so I'm left believing you're writing this comment just to stick a fork in pe…

I agree that the comment was strongly and perhaps not carefully worded but it seems this was not just a "fork in the eyes" comment", see http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/sam_altmans_sexism_st... where yummyfajitas summarizes some good points.

You can criticize the format and language of the comment all you want but implying things like "I think you're too smart to believe in BS like this" is condescending.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#173

Post by chillingeffect »

StandardFuture wrote: post #124

I have always been pessimistic about the glorification of Silicon Valley, but this puts me over the edge to be utterly disgusted with everything that is the Tech world. It might as well be a giant cult, where the "priests" (VCs and/or wealthy individuals in general) get to have sex with the women (people) of their choice. I am absolutely disgusted. The level of hypocrisy in this industry is horrendous. Until the Tech…

"Venture capital is a relationship-driven business: a who-you-know world rather than a what-you-know world. First introductions and producers are found through social rather than professional circles, and a good number of those social circuits just don’t belong in this century. Even if the VCs aren’t racist, many of the the social intermediaries and clubs one must navigate in order to get to them are." [0]

[0] http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/vc-istan-6-th...

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#174

Post by mkal_tsr »

dkarapetyan wrote: post #165
StandardFuture wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they are in it to make the world a better place No, saying that you want to make the world a better place, and saying that whatever you are working on makes the world a better place, is entirely (100%) different from actually taking the necessary actions to solving known and common world problems and actually making the world a better place. The level of hypocrisy in tech is beyond ridiculous.

Sure but you're not going to solve the immediate problem of the various imbalances in the tech world in terms of gender equality and general power imbalances if stuff like this continues to remain anonymous. It might not seem like it but by choosing where, how, and who I work for I'm making a deliberate choice. I know that this is a luxury and that not many people have it but I like to put that luxury to good use and…

Well, if you go purely anonymous in all aspects, you prevent a lot of these things from even being an issue and rely only on the merit of the idea, quality of MVP, and thoroughness of the business plan - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8169051

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#175

Post by rayiner »

dsirijus wrote: post #171
rayiner wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YC isn't about building romantic relationships, it's about building companies. Mixing business and romance is a losing proposition for women, because the latter taints absolutely everything. One of the awesome things about being a guy is that I can look around at, e.g., my classmates from grad school, and be quite sure that their "mental file" of me has a lot more about my intellect and character than about my looks.…

I'm actually pro this blanket cover, but I just see it as band-aid with pretty unclear non-business related consequences. As for you argument, I'm considering looks an asset to be employed alongside intellect, presentation/communication skills. I mean, I wouldn't want to live in a business enviroment where we're assigned numbers as our names, modulate our voices to sound the same, and use same unisex avatars in a VR-…

That would undoubtedly be the most fair and most meritocratic setup, so I'm not sure why you're deriding it.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#176

Post by zorpner »

untog wrote: post #39
obvious_throw wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"all the time" in the mind of Shanley Kane, et. al. Disclaimers like these are mainly CYA statements such that the rabid hordes of social justice warriors don't throw Y Combinator under the bus on Pando because of a disgruntled founder looking to capitalize on feels where capitalizing on actual talent or acumen failed.

Sigh. Let me guess - you're a white dude, aren't you? Of course you don't see this happening. Of course you don't see discrimination in the workplace. Maybe - just for once - accept that the people who actually do face this stuff are telling you that it does happen, and that we should do something about it. Maybe try listening to a perspective - any one will do, really - that is different from your own.

Upvoted you. It's unfortunate that it's so difficult to discuss this without bringing up the sex/race of the commentator, since it invariably invites a bunch of non sequiturs about reverse racism that talk right past the critical point, which is that overt sexism and racism are often invisible to parties to which they're not directed (and in the case of e.g. sexual harassment, the perpetrators exploit the cognitive biases involved to recruit people like the GP as unwitting accomplices in denying the reality of what's happening).

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#177

Post by yummyfajitas »

tptacek wrote: post #162
yummyfajitas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a translation of Altman's message from powertalk into english: "Dear feminists and rabble rousers, we recognize your power. We are on your team. We will genuflect in the direction of those things you consider holy. Please don't target us." (For those unfamiliar with the term, "powertalk" is the in-group language of powerful people.) http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-i... YC is attempt…

This is a really unfortunate comment. The actual points it makes are superficial and, unusually for you, not backed by anything other than anecdote. It's mean-spirited. And most importantly, it's written in a way that can't possibly persuade anyone who isn't already on your side. You're too smart to believe you're trying to communicate here, so I'm left believing you're writing this comment just to stick a fork in pe…

Lately I stick to purely factual arguments, and as a result ignore most of HN. For some reason I felt like actually having a conversation on HN today.

I don't expect this comment to persuade most people. However, I do believe the argument I'm making here, and I believe it can persuade some people. HN is a pretty good crowd. For example, over a few years, I've observed the conversation about HFT on here has shifted wildly - people occasionally cite my articles, so I think I've contributed.

I've been convinced by Robin Hanson and others that many of the public arguments made (particularly by powerful figures) are signalling of the form I describe in this post. I believe it's a good explanation of why such things are posted.

The fact of the matter is that on merit, Sam Altman's post on this topic is nonsense. It attacks a straw man and draws inference by juxtuposition. See my post criticizing it (which mostly takes the perspective that it's an honest argument):

http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2014/sam_altmans_sexism_st...

Sam Altman is a smart guy. I seriously doubt that he wrote something so nonsensical as a real argument. The best explanation I can come up with for why so many smart people are posting silly things is like this is signalling.

I'm sorry you dislike my comment, but it is an attempt to explain my views rather than simply an attempt to "stick a fork in people's eyes".

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#178

Post by axlprose »

rayiner wrote: post #160
axlprose wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We (as a country) are trying to do something about global warming are we not? Sure we have nut-job deniers and all that, but compared to many countries that legitimately do not care about "being green", the US is doing rather decently (although arguably still not good enough, but it all has to start somewhere). Holding "power" is not a zero-sum game -- having slightly less power than another slightly more predominant…

> We (as a country) are trying to do something about global warming are we not? Only to the extent that it doesn't get in the way of the hundred priorities ahead of global warming on the list. And all the pollution that isn't associated with a hot-button issue like global warming isn't even on the radar. Coal, for example, is something that's so damaging that there aren't even nut-job deniers arguing otherwise. Yet,…

Yes, but lets not go around bashing something that is clearly better than nothing, and needlessly belittling the accomplishments of clearly influential movements. Things will always be open to improvement, and we should focus on that, not on how little power we have (oh no!); that's exactly the type of needless victimization that gives feminism a bad name (if you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, google around for 'Suey Park').

In any case, it is still an idealistic ideology, because then at what point does it declare/define 'victory'? That's never been made very clear, and despite the massive strides it has made in the past several decades, we're still talking about it like it's some totally unknown, underdog minority issue -- where are the goal posts? That's a rhetorical question because it's not supposed to have goal posts, just like how environmentalism doesn't -- it's an ideal, one of female rights that people should definitely strive for, but let's not make it out to be some sort of clear-cut political policy that has failed to be implemented, that just does the whole movement a disservice.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#179

Post by dragonwriter »

axlprose wrote: post #152
rayiner wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's something that everyone knows to pay lip service to, in the same way that everyone pays lip service to being "green." But are you going to say with a straight face that environmentalists are in a position of power?

We (as a country) are trying to do something about global warming are we not? Sure we have nut-job deniers and all that, but compared to many countries that legitimately do not care about "being green", the US is doing rather decently (although arguably still not good enough, but it all has to start somewhere). Holding "power" is not a zero-sum game -- having slightly less power than another slightly more predominant…

> We (as a country) are trying to do something about global warming are we not?

Not really. The federal executive branch is sort of unilaterally trying to do a bit using a legal framework not specifically designed for it, Congress has no clear commitment either way (the Republican Party holding a majority in the House and mostly opposing concrete action -- some members denying GW is real, some members opposing federal government action on environmental issues that might limit immediate business opportunity generally, and others just opposing any specific proposal related to global warming without necessarily having a clear ideological framework for general opposition), and some states are trying to do some things (and some states are trying to promote things directly opposed).

As a country, there's really nothing coherent going on.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#180

Post by dsirijus »

rayiner wrote: post #175
dsirijus wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually pro this blanket cover, but I just see it as band-aid with pretty unclear non-business related consequences. As for you argument, I'm considering looks an asset to be employed alongside intellect, presentation/communication skills. I mean, I wouldn't want to live in a business enviroment where we're assigned numbers as our names, modulate our voices to sound the same, and use same unisex avatars in a VR-…

That would undoubtedly be the most fair and most meritocratic setup, so I'm not sure why you're deriding it.

Then we disagree at a fairly fundamental philosophical level. And that's perfectly fine.
Post reply on HN