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

Silicon Valley: Abandoned

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#41

Post by anamax »

antonovka wrote: post #37
anamax wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will also force incumbent, stagnant industries to invest in research and development, and disperse wealth more broadly, both of which pay significant future dividends beyond simply a reduction carbon output. "force to invest" concedes the argument that these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate. As a result, the resources used by these "investments" would have b…

"force to invest" concedes the argument that these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate. As a result, the resources used by these "investments" would have been better used elsewhere. You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview. ... these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial cost…

> You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview.

I quoted your whole paragraph. The only context that I left out was what you were responding to, which people can easily see above. If there's some context "missing" that changes what you wrote into something that withstands scrutiny, that's because you never wrote it.

However, feel free to provide that missing context now.

Or, maybe you can point out how I'm wrong. You know, provide some evidence supporting "stupid". I'll help. If you're "stupid" as "you're mean, I don't like you, and I'm not going to respond to your arguments", I'll agree.

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#42

Post by anamax »

Alex3917 wrote: post #3
baguasquirrel wrote: post #2

Ostensibly, this is good as it means cheap office space. There's a catch though... have any of you folks actually seen these buildings? They're not exactly in nice neighborhoods (I actually used to work next to one of these). Most of them are over the 101 which means it'll be a 15-20 minute drive to downtown for food. While it's true that Google is also past the 101, they can also afford to hire their own chefs. An a…

"Ostensibly, this is good as it means cheap office space." Cheap office space in a dying empire that smart people are increasingly leaving because its citizens are too shortsighted to realize their economy will collapse if they don't pay for what they've purchased, too racist to let in the next generation of innovators, too stupid to educate their own kids, and too apathetic to fix the problem. Cap-and-trade is proba…

> Cap-and-trade is probably the last chance to fix the economy of the valley, and frankly it's not looking good right now.

One way to distinguish folks who actually care about carbon from folks pushing some other agenda is to bring up nuclear. If nuclear is their top short term priority, they're serious about carbon. If it isn't, they're using carbon to push another agenda.

And no, it doesn't take a long time to get nuclear on-line. What takes a long time is people-imposed constraints that add nothing to safety, efficiency, etc If those constraints are more important than carbon....

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#43

Post by anamax »

antonovka wrote: post #21
perkoff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "tons of highly intelligent and competent people" will probably not sit down and roll their fingers in either case. Rather, programs like this drains brain power from other sectors of the economy. There is an alternative usage for most resources! ANY new program would not increase our wealth. Building pyramids, for example, is just a waste of resources. Even if it would "create" a great deal of jobs for constru…

Even if it would "create" a great deal of jobs for construction engineers, it would take away resources from _useful_ production. In the U.S., we have no shortage of "useful" production, and no shortage of not-very-useful production (see also: Cougartown). Reducing pollution is useful production. I appreciate the idea that we'll assign a cost to traditional externalities whose cost is usually foisted on society at la…

> no shortage of not-very-useful production (see also: Cougartown).

Ah yes, the proles and their bad taste. They're so dumb that they pay for their stuff and are embarrassed to ask for subsidies.

Everyone knows that the best people rely on thugs to get resources.

Speaking of thugs, where's the omlet?

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#44

Post by antonovka »

anamax wrote: post #43
antonovka wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it would "create" a great deal of jobs for construction engineers, it would take away resources from _useful_ production. In the U.S., we have no shortage of "useful" production, and no shortage of not-very-useful production (see also: Cougartown). Reducing pollution is useful production. I appreciate the idea that we'll assign a cost to traditional externalities whose cost is usually foisted on society at la…

> no shortage of not-very-useful production (see also: Cougartown). Ah yes, the proles and their bad taste. They're so dumb that they pay for their stuff and are embarrassed to ask for subsidies. Everyone knows that the best people rely on thugs to get resources. Speaking of thugs, where's the omlet?

Seems like you just want to hit someone over the head with your indignance, not actually discuss anything rationally.

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#45

Post by antonovka »

anamax wrote: post #41
antonovka wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"force to invest" concedes the argument that these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial costs, aka a govt mandate. As a result, the resources used by these "investments" would have been better used elsewhere. You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview. ... these "investments" don't make any economic sense absent artificial cost…

> You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview. I quoted your whole paragraph. The only context that I left out was what you were responding to, which people can easily see above. If there's some context "missing" that changes what you wrote into something that withstands scrutiny, that's because you never wrote it. However, feel free to provide that mis…

Or, maybe you can point out how I'm wrong. You know, provide some evidence supporting "stupid". I'll help. If you're "stupid" as "you're mean, I don't like you, and I'm not going to respond to your arguments", I'll agree.

Stupid, as in: In the context of the sentence, the use of "force" was clearly in terms of market forces, and didn't "concede" anything about the rationality or reality of investing in cleaner energy and processes.

It's clear that any discussion with you devolves into responding to ridiculously irrational devices of rhetoric, so I'll stop here.

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#46

Post by anamax »

antonovka wrote: post #45
anamax wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're twisting an out of context quote to provide a stupid strawman worthy of attacking with your worldview. I quoted your whole paragraph. The only context that I left out was what you were responding to, which people can easily see above. If there's some context "missing" that changes what you wrote into something that withstands scrutiny, that's because you never wrote it. However, feel free to provide that mis…

Or, maybe you can point out how I'm wrong. You know, provide some evidence supporting "stupid". I'll help. If you're "stupid" as "you're mean, I don't like you, and I'm not going to respond to your arguments", I'll agree. Stupid, as in: In the context of the sentence, the use of "force" was clearly in terms of market forces , and didn't "concede" anything about the rationality or reality of investing in cleaner energ…

> the use of "force" was clearly in terms of market forces

This market isn't free - the price is forced by govt. You remember govt - they're folks who shoot you if you don't do what they want. (They're not the only folks who will do that, but ....)

Without that threat of force establishing a price, there would be a lot less investment.

You may like the price established, but that doesn't change the fact that the price would be different without the threat of force, and there would be a lot less investment.

> ridiculously irrational devices of rhetoric

Since when does pointing out how govt mandates work qualify?

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#47

Post by anamax »

antonovka wrote: post #44
anamax wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no shortage of not-very-useful production (see also: Cougartown). Ah yes, the proles and their bad taste. They're so dumb that they pay for their stuff and are embarrassed to ask for subsidies. Everyone knows that the best people rely on thugs to get resources. Speaking of thugs, where's the omlet?

Seems like you just want to hit someone over the head with your indignance, not actually discuss anything rationally.

Do you really want to argue that the Cougartown comment was rational? If not, why is replying in-kind unreasonable?
Post reply on HN