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

Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

old.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–184 of 184 posts

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#181

Post by Trundle »

smsm42 wrote: post #177
Trundle wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster hasn't said anything about people not being worth having access to reproduction, or being allowed to. I can't help but think people are reading some form of government mandate argument from their preference when they haven't mentioned one. I like swimming. I don't think anyone should be forced to swim nor that its the governments business to increase swimming. That guy wants to filter partners by their lon…

As I said, as a personal preference, it's personal business. If it's advocated as a societal norm, the government will inevitably come in, if not as direct coercion, then as softer means - subsidies, preferences, financial incentives, propaganda, etc. That's how it has always worked - maybe in theory the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing societal norms, but it very much is in practice.

There are already personal preferences in partners that are so common that they're basically norms. I don't see a world where people take longevity of a potential partners health in to consideration on top of height, face, class, etc; and the government decides to get involved, to be all that much worse than the one where people just take height, face, class, etc in to consideration and the government decides to get involved.

To me an appropriate analogy would be if burkas were the norm for everyone, some guy was all "I wish we could easily see peoples faces when trying to date. I have a really attractive face and I'd like a partner with the same", then someone was all "the government will get involved!"

How and why? Prevent uglies from dating hotties? The market already does a decent job of that.

There's no department for "dating profile height fraud".

No one cries "eugenics!" at being able to see how attractive your partner is.

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#182

Post by smsm42 »

Trundle wrote: post #181
smsm42 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, as a personal preference, it's personal business. If it's advocated as a societal norm, the government will inevitably come in, if not as direct coercion, then as softer means - subsidies, preferences, financial incentives, propaganda, etc. That's how it has always worked - maybe in theory the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing societal norms, but it very much is in practice.

There are already personal preferences in partners that are so common that they're basically norms. I don't see a world where people take longevity of a potential partners health in to consideration on top of height, face, class, etc; and the government decides to get involved, to be all that much worse than the one where people just take height, face, class, etc in to consideration and the government decides to get…

No one needs to cry anything - the OP admitted he's into eugenics. He just thinks it's completely logical and natural thing - after all, don't we want to better the human race?

Re: Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund (2008)

#184

Post by gdilla »

shaki-dora wrote: post #139
gdilla wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter has wracked up 2.5B in losses over like 11 years. Only now have they turned a profit. That is a failure in the time frame of its existence. http://time.com/4241716/twitter-losses-twtr/

Twitter is almost certainly worth more today than their historical losses, making them a success.

Is it? The opportunity cost of that $2.5B is what to compare to. You could have acquired instagram for half that, for example.
Post reply on HN