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

Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

joanwestenberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 513 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#501

Post by dreambuffer »

_fat_santa wrote: post #138
lijok wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They changed. You wouldn’t believe it but those most impacted by the mental rot that social media can induce - are the ultra wealthy.

I have a tangential theory to this. Being rich != being famous. There are tons of extremely wealthy people out there that keep a very low profile. Sure they might be well known within their circle but ask the average person and they have no clue who that person is. I would say this is the case for like 90-95% of billionaires. Musk, Andreessen, Zuck and others were all in this camp 10 years ago but they all decided th…

The silent ones have also gone insane though. You don't get to see it as much, but they're the people promoting bad policies and funding delusional projects behind the scenes. Every so often one of them will make a public statement or political contribution which reveals that they have also been spending way too much time online.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#502

Post by bluecheese452 »

dang wrote: post #473
bluecheese452 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a criticism of a right leaning figure. Same rules apply as when the queen died. Free discussion is allowed as long as it is not criticism.

The point would be the same if the figure leaned otherwise, but (again, understandably) people only remember the cases that happened to strike them unpleasantly.

If you really believe that you are deceiving yourself.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#503

Post by rexpop »

bigyabai wrote: post #464
rexpop wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mushy gushy feelings Capitalist realism is the most mushy gushy, vibes-based ideological cowardice at large, today. Sure, oppressive power structures are not a static monolith, and they constantly morph and reinvent themselves to survive. However, the conclusion that change must therefore come strictly from the "top" via "black-and-white" regulation (or that that bottom-up revolution relies on "mushy-gushy feelings…

> They relocate to regions with cheaper labor and fewer regulations [...] and they automate or restructure the workplace to disempower workers. That's a total, unqualified victory. If your regulation is intended to stop people exploiting your customers or labor base, the best possible outcome is that exploitative fuckbags pack up their stuff and leave. This is what we're seeing in California, where every single Fortu…

I could give you examples, but I'm tired.

You should take it upon yourself to interrogate the foundations of your comfortable life.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#504

Post by AndrewKemendo »

tolciho wrote: post #377
svachalek wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tribal chiefs are not authoritarians? Because basically every Stone Age village has one.

A brief look at certain native American tribes might show quite a lot of talking and consensus building, like if some war chief wants a war he needs to drum up support for that. Hours of talking ensue! Not to say that ancient tribes didn't have the worst of what modern corporations have to offer as far as leadership goes, but a claim "basically every village" is basically wrong, or "bascially" is carrying a heck of a…

All Native tribes have been thoroughly dominated and decimated into being constrained to reservations by waves of brutal colonists, that were, as I said, the most ruthless.

So again, the most ruthless win

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#505

Post by AndrewKemendo »

skdhfkdjfhsjk wrote: post #492
Zigurd wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read some Charles Mann. Tribal leaders if they can really be described as leaders had to work with consensus and cooperation. Modern society is much more coercive.

Among the Cherokee councils--which included both men and women--unanimous agreement was required for any group decision. In their society, and in so many others who have been crushed by the forces of empire over the eons, the leaders of the people did not get there by murdering their way to the top. They were respected persons who were elevated to that position by the people. Tradition tells us the Cherokee did once…

And how much operational power does the Cherokee nation have compared to their neighbors in the United States?

Oh none?

Is that because their peaceful means were so successful in not being dominated by a massive group of unencumbered rapists and Pillagers?

What precisely is the argument you’re making here because all you’re doing is proving my point

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#506

Post by tolciho »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #504
tolciho wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A brief look at certain native American tribes might show quite a lot of talking and consensus building, like if some war chief wants a war he needs to drum up support for that. Hours of talking ensue! Not to say that ancient tribes didn't have the worst of what modern corporations have to offer as far as leadership goes, but a claim "basically every village" is basically wrong, or "bascially" is carrying a heck of a…

All Native tribes have been thoroughly dominated and decimated into being constrained to reservations by waves of brutal colonists, that were, as I said, the most ruthless. So again, the most ruthless win

Except where the lucky win, or the most ruthless actually suck at winning wars (Bret Devereaux has some interesting observations here, and a study of the various "unbeatable" and of course ruthless empires may also be educational), or where various species cooperate in various ways, or where nobody cries when Mr. Ruthless mutters "rosebud" then dies. "Well, it couldn't have happened to a better chap", said the butler.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#507

Post by cptskippy »

wodenokoto wrote: post #31

Is the 1 percenters getting dumber or acting like it? Like 10 years ago, I felt like Andreesen and Elon were thought leaders. Now they sound like idiots. Did I or did they change? Did I grow up and they changed to a younger audience and what I used to enjoy was just a different kind of stupid?

> Is the 1 percenters getting dumber or acting like it?

I feel like their messages are designed to derail people's train of thought.

People start to realize that technology isn't fulfilling and they need to re-access their lives? Nah... introspection is a modern invention and that act of reflection is actually the source of your discontent. Stop thinking about it and just go with the flow, you'll be much happier when you stop concerning yourselves with the state of the environment, other people's well being, if your work is fulfilling, or the fact that you have no retirement.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#508

Post by AndrewKemendo »

tolciho wrote: post #506
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All Native tribes have been thoroughly dominated and decimated into being constrained to reservations by waves of brutal colonists, that were, as I said, the most ruthless. So again, the most ruthless win

Except where the lucky win, or the most ruthless actually suck at winning wars (Bret Devereaux has some interesting observations here, and a study of the various "unbeatable" and of course ruthless empires may also be educational), or where various species cooperate in various ways, or where nobody cries when Mr. Ruthless mutters "rosebud" then dies. "Well, it couldn't have happened to a better chap", said the butler…

Cooperation and Competition are typically temporal periods but only one is extractive irrespective of externalities where cooperation can be mutual but with devastating externalities (ecological collapse)

So unfortunately it’s insufficient to simply be cooperative and the fact that macro level cooperation appears to be rare in the universe

Further, the existing examples of mutual cooperative organizations are so rare as to be non-existent. Humans seem to prefer (or are biologically limited to preferring) competition based social and economic structures.

Re: Marc Andreessen is wrong about introspection

#509

Post by palata »

leptons wrote: post #408
asdff wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people get dumber as they age. I feel like I'm probably dumber than me 10 years ago. No one wants to admit it, but I sense it in myself and I think I can see it in other people. I feel like peak brain is probably like 22 years old if we are being honest. Yeah you might still be doing dumb kid stuff but you are at the age where you just have this energizer bunny inside. You can just go to the library and churn…

So you don't think wisdom is a thing that people acquire as they age? I can tell you from experience that 22 year old people are generally lacking in wisdom. A few of them have a little bit, but overall 22 year olds are just as stupid as teenagers. Most people don't have much wisdom by age 22. They do have plenty of hubris though. If we're speaking about mental capabilities, there's nothing that I could do at 22 that…

> overall 22 year olds are just as stupid as teenagers

It's interesting to start by saying that "wisdom is something you accumulate with time", and right after implying that "being 22 is just the same as being 14" (not mentioning the fact that there was apparently a need to be disrespectful to them).

Pretty sure I know a few people "as stupid as teenagers" who would immediately see how this is a stupid take (and who may feel a need to say that this stupid and condescending take probably came from a "grumpy old man").

Post reply on HN