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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: undefined

#51

Post by serge2k »

ensignavenger wrote: post #22
kafkaesq wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has he made some admission I haven't heard about? What he says on the tape (in conjunction with perfectly credible statements from multiple witnesses) tells you everything you need to know. And BTW, the standard shouldn't be whether he's been criminally convicted or not; but "preponderance of evidence". As in the, you know, rational, pragmatic "Would you even consider (for so much as half a second) hiring someone who…

Well, I certainly didn't vote for him. But by your standard of evidence, I would have to say that we already elected someone that is just as much "confirmed serial sexual predator" who served as President for 8 years. In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger. Said former President was repeatedly defended by Trumps primary former rival for the position... so what choice did Americans really have? In the end…

> In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger

I don't think you can get much stronger than "bragged about it on tape".

Re: undefined

#52

Post by Gargoyle »

huac wrote: post #4

When I remark that President Obama had eight years without any ethical shadiness, Mr. Thiel flips it, noting: “But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.” I gasped when I read this

Personally I think it's a realistic statement. A recognition that a least a low level of corruption is part and parcel of Things Happening.

Think about the California High Speed Rail project. It's not going to happen without some low grade corruption involved. Good Ol Boys giving other Good Ol Boys the inside track on certain opportunities.

That's just something that happens in the real world. If it's not happening, the chances are good nothing is happening.

Re: undefined

#53

Post by shaldengeki »

KanyeBest wrote: post #47
shaldengeki wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain which quotes are taken out of context, and in what context they are best interpreted? I'd love to understand.

“But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.” No journalist would just change topic after hearing this. It's a very controversial and ambiguous statement, and Thiel must have elaborated a great deal on it. But there is no further mention of any of that in the article.

Definitely an amen to wanting the full transcript of the interview. It does appear that they did a brief rapid-fire response segment and published it in a separate article, though: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13378168

So I think it's contextually possible that they just moved on after Thiel's response.

Re: undefined

#54

Post by aoeu345 »

edblarney wrote: post #18
SmallBets wrote: post #6

I had never heard this, potentially SV history changing story before... He recalls a story from his and Mr. Musk’s PayPal days, when Mr. Musk joined the engineering team’s poker game and bet everything on every hand, admitting only afterward that it was his first time playing poker. Then there was the time they were driving in Mr. Musk’s McLaren F1 car, “the fastest car in the world.” It hit an embankment, achieved l…

Most of these guys are not really geniuses, they are good, smart guys who made some money and started to believe their own hype long ago, and nobody dares call them out on it. They are surrounded by enablers. Paradoxically - this is a path to success - their self-belief is so strong that it's very convincing - and so long as they have 'success' to point to - then it all snowballs from there. The press writes 'puff pi…

  Most of these guys are not really genuises
You have one anecdote to support your sour grapes claim that America's current best innovators are all frauds. Support the men and women who are building our future, your children depend on them.

Re: undefined

#55

Post by sportanova »

shaldengeki wrote: post #27
sportanova wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No ethical shadiness? Domestic spying, civilian casualties through the drone program, IRS interference in an election against political opponents...

Oh, I wasn't aware that I was implying that the current administration is without problems. I'm just really surprised at Thiel's answers in this interview.

No worries - i didn't think so. I was focusing on the quote

Re: undefined

#56

Post by sportanova »

aceperry wrote: post #33
sportanova wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No ethical shadiness? Domestic spying, civilian casualties through the drone program, IRS interference in an election against political opponents...

"IRS interference in an election against political opponents" That was a misrepresentation of what happened. And not due to Obama.

So I'm sure that you would agree that the current alleged russian interference is a misrepresentation and not due to putin

Re: undefined

#57

Post by tominous »

shaldengeki wrote: post #50
djrogers wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those quotes were preceded by, and intended to emphasize this statement: -- "Mr. Thiel shows, again and again, how he likes to “flip around” issues to see if conventional wisdom is wrong, a technique he calls Pyrrhonian skepticism. “Maybe I do always have this background program running where I’m trying to think of, ‘O.K., what’s the opposite of what you’re saying?’ and then I’ll try that,” he says. “It works surpris…

Ah, yeah -- I debated putting these two paragraphs into the quote, but figured my post was getting a bit long in the tooth :) How does this mindset influence your interpretation of his statement that a nonzero amount of corruption is good because otherwise things are "too boring"? To me, the preceding paragraphs seem to only confuse his intent -- it makes it sound like he could either be not taking the conversation s…

I can't read Thiel's mind, but his point reminded me of Mancur Olson's description of roving bandits vs stationary bandits [1].

a "roving bandit" only has the incentive to steal and destroy, whilst a "stationary bandit"—a tyrant—has an incentive to encourage some degree of economic success

The same point could be made for having no interest vs having a conflict of interest.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson

Re: undefined

#58

Post by redthrowaway »

Upvoter33 wrote: post #17

"On the one hand, the tape was clearly offensive and inappropriate. At the same time, I worry there’s a part of Silicon Valley that is hyper-politically correct about sex." uh, no.

Silicon Valley is probably the most hyper-PC place on Earth. How is his statement false?

Re: undefined

#59

Post by lalos »

huac wrote: post #4

When I remark that President Obama had eight years without any ethical shadiness, Mr. Thiel flips it, noting: “But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.” I gasped when I read this

When you talk with somebody proven dishonest, you expect dishonesty so you are on your toes. When you talk with somebody with no dirt and 'honest' the question still remains if they are honest or you are being played. He could be referring to something in that direction.

Re: undefined

#60

Post by kafkaesq »

argonaut wrote: post #41
ensignavenger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I certainly didn't vote for him. But by your standard of evidence, I would have to say that we already elected someone that is just as much "confirmed serial sexual predator" who served as President for 8 years. In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger. Said former President was repeatedly defended by Trumps primary former rival for the position... so what choice did Americans really have? In the end…

The evidence of Bill's sexual harassment is actually much thinner, since there is no tape or anything except several women's accusations (his confirmed affairs are a different matter - they were consensual and Trump also had plenty of affairs and these weren't the issue). And in one case there are several other people who testify against that woman. Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of i…

And in each case there are several other people who testify against that woman.

I don't have time to get into the fine-grain of it with you -- but if that's your impression then I'd suggest you look more closely into the basic event chronology. (What you're saying about counter-testimony has some relevance to the Wiley case; but to the Jones and Broaddrick cases, none to speak of).

Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard.

The word of "one person" (who has been established to be pathological dissembler and obfuscator on the subject of, well, just about anything he opens his mouth about) against the generally consistent and credible statements of at least 15 accusers, to be precise. Combined with his irrefutable statements on tape.

Again... it all comes down to the "would you hire this person?" standard.

Post reply on HN