Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas” • Hacker News Board

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#151

Post by cookiecaper » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

voidhorse wrote: post #105

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #33

I'm getting tired of all of the hot air coming from these tech oligarchs. They're so enriched by a tech boom and a decade of easy money that we worship at their feet. Their vision and goal for the future is simply more money for themselves at the expense of others. "Guys look! An hour long commute is actually a good thing because you can spend it with your kids!" Why is it so hard to spend time with our kids now?! I…

It's really a fascinating phenomena when you think about it. Technology has warped and dominated our world and culture to an extent it never has before. I like to imagine a little scene: a primitive man bows at the feet of another who fashioned a knife out of a mammoth tooth. That's more or less what we still do today. The technological and scientific have replaced the religious as the ruling dogma and organizational…

>I like to imagine a little scene: a primitive man bows at the feet of another who fashioned a knife out of a mammoth tooth.

>That's more or less what we still do today.

100% yes. Psychology is a thin veneer on top of biology, and evolution is a slow process. Let none of us believe we are so beyond our forbears that their problems, difficulties, and sins are behind us, or that their thoughts and lessons are irrelevant to us.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#152

Post by stagbeetle » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #141

stagbeetle wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What factors incentivize corporations to form into pyramids, with most of the wealth accruing on top? Most people are incapable of managing high-level responsibilities. Those on the lower rungs assign/relinquish (depending on how you look at it) their responsibilities, and the fruits they bear, to those they perceive more capable than them. So now instead of having a smooth slope of compensation, it's top-heavy. In…

Corporations are already propped up by a variety of opaque laws and incentives. There's little natural or intrinsic about the way they tend to be structured. People are malleable and adaptable, and I think new social and economic structures should at least be explored to see what comes out on the other side. I agree that centralized leadership tends to produce better products, but I don't think a more democratic comp…

> But I think distributing power, reward, and responsibility more equally throughout the company would be massively beneficial in terms of "social good".

I agree with you, but will the people?

History has shown that people just don't care about doing hard things themselves.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#153

Post by xj9 » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

delegate wrote: post #145

whack wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only came to HN somewhat recently, around 2 years ago, but I've started to notice a very major change in the culture of this forum lately. There is so much vitriol and blanket insults being levied at anyone and everyone. The linked article is almost always a sideshow, and simply acts as a prelude for the battle in the comments section. A battle which has little to do with what the article itself says, and is simply…

Emotions are flying high in the comments, because the world (including the virtual one) is changing fast(er) and not in the best direction. There is also great disconnect between the tech billionaires and the real problems in the world. The numbers they base their worldview on are carefully curated and the story is of course that 'things are greater than ever', but the rest of the people (especially outside the US) a…

well, the world is better than it ever has been, but it feels worse. objectively, we all have a higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, and more opportunities for education than generation in (known) human history. what we (as a whole) don't know how to deal with is having access to the internet.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#154

Post by wavefunction » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 9:58 PM UTC

petra wrote: post #73

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may surprise you, but people defined as "living in extreme poverty" weren't always unhappy to be there. Western standards of affluence are the economic default, but they don't include any measure of happiness, fulfilment, or contentment. The factors that generate the last three are largely unrelated to median income. In fact they reliably go down when neoliberal "efficient allocation of capital" becomes the domi…

I agree with a lot of what you said, but : >> 15% of US households cannot consistently afford food, .. 5% hunger What food are we talking about ? because basic grains, etc - the kind of meals indians eat, for ex.(and are very healthy and pretty tasty) - are extremely cheap. So is 15% possible ?

Doesn't India provide food subsidies to its poorest citizens?

Why would it be hard to believe that wealthy Western countries feature extreme or even abject poverty?

America had some huge tent cities filled with previously not-homeless families living in them following the 2009 meltdown.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#155

Post by cookiecaper » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #141

stagbeetle wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What factors incentivize corporations to form into pyramids, with most of the wealth accruing on top? Most people are incapable of managing high-level responsibilities. Those on the lower rungs assign/relinquish (depending on how you look at it) their responsibilities, and the fruits they bear, to those they perceive more capable than them. So now instead of having a smooth slope of compensation, it's top-heavy. In…

Corporations are already propped up by a variety of opaque laws and incentives. There's little natural or intrinsic about the way they tend to be structured. People are malleable and adaptable, and I think new social and economic structures should at least be explored to see what comes out on the other side. I agree that centralized leadership tends to produce better products, but I don't think a more democratic comp…

>Hierarchies could still emerge and responsibility could still be delegated. (Again, see Valve.)

Valve is a very small, very selective company, which rarely produces new products. Despite all the overtures about freedom, there is still a central point of control that can and will put the kibosh on things if they're not going the way they want.

People have a psychological need for authorities. If you don't give them any, they will make their own out of the nearest willing "charismatic" person, who will emerge as a de-facto authority. An explicit structure is better than mob rule.

I don't think anyone believes wealth inequality is not a problem, but I don't think non-hierarchical structures are going to do anything to solve it.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#156

Post by stagbeetle » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

dave_sullivan wrote: post #148

stagbeetle wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In such a world, most people will have to be on the dole at some point in their life, and that will be OK. I don't think so. If "most people are simply not going to be economically useful" for what reason, besides an appeal to utopianism, is it a good idea to strain the country's resources in chase of an ideal? Basic income will pave the way to cementing this feudalistic class-inequality we possess today. Extremely…

> If "most people are simply not going to be economically useful" for what reason, besides an appeal to utopianism, is it a good idea to strain the country's resources in chase of an ideal? Two very practical reasons. A) People need to buy groceries. What will you do when they're at your door with pitchforks, pissed because you told them to "go eat cake"? B) For the larger economy to function, there has to be bottom…

> A) People need to buy groceries. What will you do when they're at your door with pitchforks, pissed because you told them to "go eat cake"?

It's a good thing I have the police and military under my thumb to quell all uprisings. If I were smart, I would elevate them to the upper class and remove their current class loyalties.

But a more practical answer: What's stopping those with (economic resources) from continuing their views that those without aren't human. That they're causing upheaval in society and their plight is baseless. That they should be locked away, or worse.

> If you just give people money to spend, that will drive the economy at the bottom. It's basically like the opposite of trickle-down economics and I think it's much more sustainable.

This goes against your first point. Basic income is assumed to mean "just enough income to buy vital products, services, and utilities." Commodities don't drive the economy and innovation. Unless, you propose a "workless wage" where the average person gets something like 70k just for being alive.

Which then, why work? The average joe doesn't care about the same things most HN users do. They'll simply stop producing the labor that serves as the foundation for so many "innovative" and "cool" companies.

So on and so forth, the economy crashes.

> Also, there's growing awareness that sociopaths aren't good for society, so arguments along the lines of "oh quit whining and suck it up you pussies" are starting to get a lot more pushback.

I fear it's a similar situation to drug addicts. Crack-down hard on the, relatively, low-level crime, instead of starting from the top. Similarly here, crack down on the most obvious, and less intelligent, of the pack and you're just strengthening the sociopath's genome.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#157

Post by GauntletWizard » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 10:07 PM UTC

hathawsh wrote: post #118

whack wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only came to HN somewhat recently, around 2 years ago, but I've started to notice a very major change in the culture of this forum lately. There is so much vitriol and blanket insults being levied at anyone and everyone. The linked article is almost always a sideshow, and simply acts as a prelude for the battle in the comments section. A battle which has little to do with what the article itself says, and is simply…

This effect always seems to come with popularity. Once upon a time, Slashdot had some amazingly insightful discussions, leading to a growth in popularity, which led to increased noise. That noise led to increased cynicism and eventually burnout. The same thing has sadly happened to every popular tech news site I know of. The secret is to keep searching for a new place to have high quality discussions. You never know…

I'm finding myself going back to Slashdot as of late. It's quality is not what it was once upon a time, and there's still more trolls there than I'd like, but now that it's not popular it's surprisingly easy to find good conversation (and the trolls are usually well moderated)

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#158

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 10:07 PM UTC

stagbeetle wrote: post #156

dave_sullivan wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If "most people are simply not going to be economically useful" for what reason, besides an appeal to utopianism, is it a good idea to strain the country's resources in chase of an ideal? Two very practical reasons. A) People need to buy groceries. What will you do when they're at your door with pitchforks, pissed because you told them to "go eat cake"? B) For the larger economy to function, there has to be bottom…

> A) People need to buy groceries. What will you do when they're at your door with pitchforks, pissed because you told them to "go eat cake"? It's a good thing I have the police and military under my thumb to quell all uprisings. If I were smart, I would elevate them to the upper class and remove their current class loyalties. But a more practical answer: What's stopping those with (economic resources) from continuin…

> Unless, you propose a "workless wage" where the average person gets something like 70k just for being alive.

> Which then, why work?

The same reason people already making 70K working a certain number of hours with a certain degree of effort expend additional effort to make more if they can do so: because wants are unlimited.

Of course the level of universal income an economy support varies by the degree of automation and other factors (including cultural factors), so it's best to start small, and set it up so it scales smoothly and naturally with the capacity of the system to support it rather than simply targeting a particular (basic or otherwise) level.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#159

Post by enraged_camel » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 10:09 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #147

enraged_camel wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other possible explanation is that there is a formula for success. It's just extraordinarily complex and we haven't figured it out yet, so we just attribute it to this thing called luck, the same way ancient people didn't understand thunder and attributed it to gods expressing their anger.

There isn't a formula for success because "success" doesn't have a firm definition. I would argue that a person that has a happy home life and feels comfortable and sufficiently compensated in their work is a success. There are hundreds of millions such people. This doesn't seem overly complex at all.

>>There isn't a formula for success because "success" doesn't have a firm definition.

Yeah, but when someone says "Marc Andreessen is successful" most people are able to deduce the criteria that was used to make that judgment. So while "success" as a whole may not have a firm definition, "be successful like Marc Andreessen" may.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#160

Post by stagbeetle » Fri, Apr 07, 2017, 10:09 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #158

stagbeetle wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A) People need to buy groceries. What will you do when they're at your door with pitchforks, pissed because you told them to "go eat cake"? It's a good thing I have the police and military under my thumb to quell all uprisings. If I were smart, I would elevate them to the upper class and remove their current class loyalties. But a more practical answer: What's stopping those with (economic resources) from continuin…

> Unless, you propose a "workless wage" where the average person gets something like 70k just for being alive. > Which then, why work? The same reason people already making 70K working a certain number of hours with a certain degree of effort expend additional effort to make more if they can do so: because wants are unlimited. Of course the level of universal income an economy support varies by the degree of automati…

> The same reason people already making 70K working a certain number of hours with a certain degree of effort expend additional effort to make more if they can do so: because wants are unlimited.

Wants are theoretically unlimited, however in practice people have a few set of wants they need to have fulfilled to be "content." See: new video games, new computer specs, new car, etc.

You don't have a majority of spendthrifts among the labor-producing class.