This is my first time seeing and listening Paul Graham. Why is he going on ummm ummmm? It is so distracting. I don't want to be seen as critical, just a feedback.
[deleted]
Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#32I enjoyed the talk and admired his good use of clarity when talking about the problems. However, the counter to clarity is that it might be a bit too clean for the real world, and that was apparent when answering the questions about copyright at the end. I realize that pg wasn't particularly prepared to be dealing with questions unrelated to the talk, but it was the first time I've seen him not easily handle question…
For the morality question, if I was PG, I would've just said that my passion is to provide -you- the user/the world with what you want, so if there's no demand for it, then I won't build it.
Entering into a discussion about objective morality is a dead end.
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#33I enjoyed the talk and admired his good use of clarity when talking about the problems. However, the counter to clarity is that it might be a bit too clean for the real world, and that was apparent when answering the questions about copyright at the end. I realize that pg wasn't particularly prepared to be dealing with questions unrelated to the talk, but it was the first time I've seen him not easily handle question…
> it was alarming that pg didn't have a clear moral position when asked about his decision-making process.
I would prefer it if people didn't force pg to qualify his statements like a politician.
Obviously he could add "of course, this is just a good idea as long as the expected utility of the humanity at large is greater with it than without it on a reasonably long time line." but it would just be an empty phrase.
We need powerful people to be more open like pg, what we don't need is more people putting on a PR-mask just for the sake of seeming Responsible, Serious and Altruistic.
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#34This is better than TED. It's rare and inspiring to see an engaging speaker with so many good ideas in one presentation. PG's response to the music copyright critic was about right modulo a minor nit that the critic conflated trademarks with copyright and wasn't called on this. Trademarks are a social good. Copyright is ripe for reform--a long discussion.
PG is absolutely right about email. If you ever had a chance to see what the inbox of someone important looks like compared with what they would like it to look like, you would know that the seemingly reasonable recommendation to consolidate email accounts with GMail is far from optimal.
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#35I don't mean to be harsh but after reading the article I couldn't listen to the "Uhhh Ehmmmm"s anymore. Was he just reading the transcript to the guys? A keynote should be without any "uhh"s and "ehmmm"s otherwise you will not get audience IMO.
To each his own I guess. I actually really liked his speaking style, Paul came across as being easy-going and approachable. It also made his speech with notes not sound so much like a dry and stuffy keynote you usually hear at conferences.
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#36I enjoyed the talk and admired his good use of clarity when talking about the problems. However, the counter to clarity is that it might be a bit too clean for the real world, and that was apparent when answering the questions about copyright at the end. I realize that pg wasn't particularly prepared to be dealing with questions unrelated to the talk, but it was the first time I've seen him not easily handle question…
"Morals" are an excuse people use to try to impose their personal interest over others. Honest people use reasoning instead. I'm glad pg is open and honest enough to not include "morality" discussion in his decision. And not even be ashamed to try to hide it in public, as a populist politician would. That got him some points from me.
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#37I enjoyed the talk and admired his good use of clarity when talking about the problems. However, the counter to clarity is that it might be a bit too clean for the real world, and that was apparent when answering the questions about copyright at the end. I realize that pg wasn't particularly prepared to be dealing with questions unrelated to the talk, but it was the first time I've seen him not easily handle question…
For the morality question, if I was PG, I would've just said that my passion is to provide -you- the user/the world with what you want, so if there's no demand for it, then I won't build it. Entering into a discussion about objective morality is a dead end.
That's fine, but he didn't even articulate that.
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#38I enjoyed the talk and admired his good use of clarity when talking about the problems. However, the counter to clarity is that it might be a bit too clean for the real world, and that was apparent when answering the questions about copyright at the end. I realize that pg wasn't particularly prepared to be dealing with questions unrelated to the talk, but it was the first time I've seen him not easily handle question…
"Morals" are an excuse people use to try to impose their personal interest over others. Honest people use reasoning instead. I'm glad pg is open and honest enough to not include "morality" discussion in his decision. And not even be ashamed to try to hide it in public, as a populist politician would. That got him some points from me.
Morality is a lot deeper than you're making it out to be. Please don't straw man my argument to mean phony, superficial "Morals." I'd suggest starting with a survey of moral philosophy.
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#39I enjoyed the talk and admired his good use of clarity when talking about the problems. However, the counter to clarity is that it might be a bit too clean for the real world, and that was apparent when answering the questions about copyright at the end. I realize that pg wasn't particularly prepared to be dealing with questions unrelated to the talk, but it was the first time I've seen him not easily handle question…
> it was alarming that pg didn't have a clear moral position when asked about his decision-making process. I would prefer it if people didn't force pg to qualify his statements like a politician. Obviously he could add "of course, this is just a good idea as long as the expected utility of the humanity at large is greater with it than without it on a reasonably long time line." but it would just be an empty phrase. W…
I never said his morality had to be "Responsible, Serious and Altruistic." It looks like you're assuming that morality is a simple construct used only by politicians for deception. In reality, almost every significant, powerful figure I've read about has some guidelines to his or her behavior, even if it's a pluralistic framework.
Additionally, it was strange that you projected your own Utilitarian belief system onto pg. I've never read or heard him articulate his moral position; he alludes to one in "Things you can't say," but obviously doesn't say it.
I think a lot of the HN crowd is very good at examining hard subjects like science but is under-developed in the humanities. That's an obvious statement due to the nature of this forum, but it doesn't hurt as a reminder that maybe there are unknown unknowns to the human condition you may have not considered.
Re: Paul Graham PyCon 2012 keynote
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it was alarming that pg didn't have a clear moral position when asked about his decision-making process. I would prefer it if people didn't force pg to qualify his statements like a politician. Obviously he could add "of course, this is just a good idea as long as the expected utility of the humanity at large is greater with it than without it on a reasonably long time line." but it would just be an empty phrase. W…
I never said his morality had to be "Responsible, Serious and Altruistic." It looks like you're assuming that morality is a simple construct used only by politicians for deception. In reality, almost every significant, powerful figure I've read about has some guidelines to his or her behavior, even if it's a pluralistic framework. Additionally, it was strange that you projected your own Utilitarian belief system onto…
> I've never read or heard him articulate his moral position; he alludes to one in "Things you can't say," but obviously doesn't say it.
Funny side note: moral positions, in the abstract, aren't usually things you can't say. They usually sound eminently reasonable, until you work out the consequences. This is more or less the history of ethics.