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

Careless People

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 575 posts

Re: Careless People

#451

Post by rottc0dd »

hirvi74 wrote: post #391
rottc0dd wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me for generalizing the point. That's not fair to do just based on these anecdotes. But, I can also understand their perspective. Paul continued to be a guitar player all his life and hosted jamming sessions in his home. I started with piano very late in my life and not very regular, but I am just happy to join the fun party.

Congratulations on learning piano. I think everyone who is capable of learning an instrument should consider it. Rachmaninoff once said, "Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music." So, no matter when one starts, there would never be enough time to truly master the craft. I believe it is better for one to start late and enjoy it than start early and burnout.

Thanks a lot. It is really fun. But, I don't have adult company in my neighborhood.

If take "What if I don't became great with this" anxiety out of the equation, it feels just more fun and life seems a little more colorful being a beginner.

Re: Careless People

#452

Post by ninetyninenine »

eru wrote: post #374
ninetyninenine wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game of capitalism is to win by any means necessary. Rigging the game and evading the law is part of game itself. All winners play the game this way.

What does any of this have to do with capitalism? Have you ever seen a succession struggle in eg any old monarchy?

Capitalism is a system that allows people to make wealth based on trade. The winners in this game are the people at the top of the hierarchy. All these type A billionaires are the ultimate winners of the game. Zuck is a winner.

In communism the system says there are no winners. Everything needs to be fair.

Re: Careless People

#453

Post by 3np »

remus wrote: post #378
rsynnott wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they got a court order (they did get partial bars on publicity AIUI) it would _still make the problem for Facebook worse_, tho.

I'm not so sure. I think there is some selection bias happening, so it's easy to say "Streisand effect!" When it makes the headlines but that ignores the times it doesn't make the headlines.

Yeah. How many were silenced prior to this?

Re: Careless People

#454

Post by Llamamoe »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #257
technothrasher wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. I remember being miles ahead of my peers in computer science in high school. When getting to college and finding people most definitely better than I was, I was incredibly excited to finally find such people, not scared away.

That’s not a common reaction with humans. When people are the best, there’s a huge serotonin rush. Like literally this is measurable in humans. Serotonin regulates dominance hierarchies and is associated with happiness. It’s so biological in nature that the same effect can be witnessed in lobsters. People or lobsters high in dominance have more serotonin and are generally happier. Your story is not only anomalous. Bu…

It sounds like the commenter above is just less insecure about themselves and more excited for opportunities to discuss and learn than you and whoever you're describing here are.

Re: Careless People

#455

Post by hermitcrab »

matusp wrote: post #396
hermitcrab wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The big thieves hang the little ones." Czech Proverb

It's actually Roman: Magni minores saepe fures puniunt

Where does it come from? I Googled "Magni minores saepe fures puniunt" and mostly found pages in Czech.

Re: Careless People

#456

Post by brickfaced »

falcor84 wrote: post #48
brickfaced wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complicity in what, exactly? Democracy? Personally I'm less concerned about Facebook staying neutral in 2016 and more concerned about their election sabotage in 2020: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3616579-zuckerberg-tel... Of course in the end things turned out for the best, but that's almost certainly not what Sheryl wanted, so I guess it's on theme for the book.

I'm not following, which things turned out for the best?

The 2024 general election.

Re: Careless People

#457

Post by brickfaced »

pjc50 wrote: post #43
brickfaced wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complicity in what, exactly? Democracy? Personally I'm less concerned about Facebook staying neutral in 2016 and more concerned about their election sabotage in 2020: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3616579-zuckerberg-tel... Of course in the end things turned out for the best, but that's almost certainly not what Sheryl wanted, so I guess it's on theme for the book.

US nationals being subject to arbitrary detention by ICE, with the plan to deport them to irretrievable offshore prisons, is probably not the best.

Big if true. Meanwhile, most are pleased with the bans on men in women's sports and DoD doctors sterilizing children, among other executive actions.

Re: Careless People

#458

Post by 3np »

hudo wrote: post #165

I read the book. After the part where she was giving a birth to her child, while still writing emails and doing work stuff, I take everything she said with a grain of salt. As a father, the way she prioritised work to family through out many years of her work at FB, I find it very repelling and disgusting. I believe that Zuck&team are slimy greedy spoiled brats, but I could also say few things about her. Which make m…

Judging authors parenting is way off topic.

Re: Careless People

#459

Post by 3np »

losvedir wrote: post #409
K0nserv wrote: post #14

The book is a good read and she also testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee[0], repeating many of the claims from the book under oath. One of the striking things is that it's clear that Mark and several others from Facebook perjured themselves in prior hearings. I expect there will be no consequence for this. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DAnORfgB8

I mean, I guess the obvious question is if one person lied under oath (her) or several (all the people that her testimony implies perjured). The book sounds pretty outlandish. That's not to say that Zuck and co aren't just a whole gang of melodramatically evil and stupid people, but it a priori it seems just as probable to me that she's the one that is? I don't know much about her. Is she a reliable witness?

Maybe you should, you know, read the book or court files or something before publicly speculating.

Re: Careless People

#460

Post by gr__or »

selkin wrote: post #403

This review is as naive as Wynn-Williams portrays herself in her memoir (which I enjoyed!) In the book, Wynn-Williams described herself as a wide-eyed, almost helpless person, which doesn't align with her pre-Facebook career as a lawyer in the a diplomatic corps. And when at FB, she was in the rooms where it happened, and had a job enabling some of it. She could've quit, but did not. She was one of the titular carele…

How does her attempt to change things from the inside, by confronting their higher ups, who constantly put her down for it and collectivizing with other insiders, still lead you to such a harsh judgment of her character?
Post reply on HN