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

481–490 of 575 posts

Re: Careless People

#481

Post by wiz21c »

t43562 wrote: post #315
sokoloff wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to some degree they believe that hard work and talent are related to success Does anyone actually believe that hard work and talent are either zero or negatively correlated to success? I don't think the correlation is 1.0, but I firmly believe that it's positive for both.

At school I used to play marbles. I had no skill whatsoever so I did "set ups" where I put a marble down and other kids threw theirs from a standard distance to hit it. If they missed the marble was mine. More valued marbles got more chances. I got "marble rich" because I knew who the good players were and when one came a long I put my foot over my marble. Once you knew the trick it was impossible not to win on avera…

They become rich because 1/ they got marbles to start with 2/ they like marbles when marbles are a thing 3/ they figure out a trick nobody has figured out (and it's just a trick, not much genius in there) 4/ they want more marbles 5/ they don't care if they loose (so they can take risk)

Re: Careless People

#482

Post by Ray20 »

Throw9444 wrote: post #344
sokoloff wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pick any of those 8 billion. Have them work half as hard. Have them have half as much talent. Do their outcomes remain the same , get better, or get worse? You’re arguing that there are other factors that also influence outcomes (and that those other factors are stronger forces). I agree with that point, but that’s not a refutation to the notion that the coefficients on talent and hard work are positive, nor a convin…

I imagine first you’d have to define success in a way others might agree with. And talent, for that matter—most notable talents can’t be easily exploited by capital. But, I do know for sure that being wealthy is correlated to neither skill nor hard work, but savvy leverage of the skill and hard work of others. That shit has to end. You should make proportional to the work you put in. Shareholders and investors are ev…

>You should make proportional to the work you put in.

Throughout the 20th century we have seen what such a social structure leads to: millions of deaths from hunger. And always, without exception: the transition to work-based economy - and in the next decade the population becomes many times poorer and a huge percentage of the population dies of starvation.

So no thanks. Between shareholders and investors, and starvation, I choose shareholders and investors.

Re: Careless People

#483

Post by noitpmeder »

rozap wrote: post #384
Arainach wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bias disclaimer: I've worked at multiple FAANGs and Meta isn't one of them, but as with anyone in the industry I've had friends at all of them. Meta feels very different - both at the top, with Zuckerberg's immunity from the board, full control, and personality "quirks" on public display - but also at the lower levels. Every company has a stable of people who will do what they're told to collect a paycheck but Meta h…

The Koolaid is stronger at Facebook, because it has to be. It does feel slightly cathartic to reject someone's resumè for having any time at Facebook on it.

Sounds like a net negative filter. I'd recommend you try prevent personal biases from playing this big of a role in hiring decisions.

Re: Careless People

#485

Post by draw_down »

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…

[dead]

Re: Careless People

#486

Post by getnormality »

dogleash wrote: post #323
optymizer wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was the TL on a Facebook app feature driven by us, the engineers, that was 100% in the category of "good for humanity and it solves a problem for billions of people". I had to fight internal org leads to launch it, because there was almost no benefit for FB. Jane leaked the feature and put this entire 'evil Facebook' shade on it, with no real proof, just wildly false speculation based on what she thought the featur…

You did something good while working for the devil, people were right to be suspect. You gain no redemption points from pointing out the people describing facebook as evil misunderstand the precise bounds of facebook's evil. Also, you didn't address parent's question about the uniqueness (or lackthereof) of Meta. Feeling targeted because people on the outside don't have the visibility to properly understand the natur…

Odd reply to a post containing relevant information. Dismissing misinformation because "people were right to be suspect"? Acting as a judge denying redemption points the poster didn't ask for?

Re: Careless People

#487

Post by xkcd-sucks »

const_cast wrote: post #371
sokoloff wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to some degree they believe that hard work and talent are related to success Does anyone actually believe that hard work and talent are either zero or negatively correlated to success? I don't think the correlation is 1.0, but I firmly believe that it's positive for both.

Neither talent nor hard work have anything to do with helping humanity. The reality is that our measurements of success don’t correlate with “goodness”, they correlate with getting stuff done. And you can do lots of evil stuff pretty easily. The reason so many rich people seem evil is because they are. You don’t become rich via charity. You become rich by exploiting others and siphoning their success to yourself. It’…

Tobacco actually has some value: It produces a craving, which can be satisfied temporarily. Being able to fulfill some kind of desire, even a contrived one, is the value. Or rather, the addiction of smoking created a desire that can definitely be satisfied.

Re: Careless People

#488

Post by losvedir »

3np wrote: post #459
losvedir wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe I should ask people who have read the book if she's a reliable witness and it's worth my time reading?

Re: Careless People

#489

Post by eth0up »

lordnacho wrote: post #96
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #9

> There's Zuck, whose underlings let him win at board-games like Settlers of Catan because he's a manbaby who can't lose (and who accuses Wynn-Williams of cheating when she fails to throw a game of Ticket to Ride while they're flying in his private jet). Why does this seem to be a recurring pattern among the modern ultrawealthy? Does anyone who fails to bend over backwards for them just end up getting exiled? Have th…

You've won the lottery, but you don't want to acknowledge that you won the lottery. You want to feel they you deserve your position through hard work and talent. You're living in a society where people are credulous, to some degree they believe that hard work and talent are related to success. So what will happen? Everyone you hire ends up patting you on the back, telling you what a great guy you are.

There's a trove of truth in this perspective. It happens on all levels of success. But what a profoundly different world it would be if wholesome humility was the default tendency. I'm not saying it would be a panacea, but understanding the dynamics, even intuitively, of the myriad interdependencies that allow our every action would be a humble leap in a better direction.

For me, the only thing anyone deserves is what everyone else deserves, and everything else is a form of lottery. There's simply no place for arrogance other than delusion. It's good to remember who built the foundations you've succeeded on, and if not beyond one's capacity, with a little dose of reverence, respect or something other than self immersion. Zuckerborg is a mirror for many.

Re: Careless People

#490

Post by dfxm12 »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #9

> There's Zuck, whose underlings let him win at board-games like Settlers of Catan because he's a manbaby who can't lose (and who accuses Wynn-Williams of cheating when she fails to throw a game of Ticket to Ride while they're flying in his private jet). Why does this seem to be a recurring pattern among the modern ultrawealthy? Does anyone who fails to bend over backwards for them just end up getting exiled? Have th…

They think their wealth, position, etc. is a result of merit. However, they know their wealth was not earned, but given. At best, they were born into a position of privilege and simply used their existing, unearned, wealth to build more.

Losing at a board game forces them to confront the fact that they aren't any more clever than their peers. They didn't get to where they were on their wits alone; they started the game with a few routes already developed.

Post reply on HN