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

521–530 of 575 posts

Re: Careless People

#521

Post by charles_f »

xdkyx wrote: post #73

This may be a little naive from my side, but I'm wondering - is every big tech company the same as Meta and it's leadership? Or is there something special, a perfect storm of circumstances that we only hear so much about so many instances of outright - can't even find the right word here - evil, stupidity, brashness? If we assume that every big (let's say FAANG) company is the same, why we hear about Meta time and ti…

Their product is somewhat different though, Amazon sells stuff and cloud. Microsoft sells business tools and cloud. Google sells Gmail, a declining search engine and cloud. Apple sells iphones and macs. Facebook sells people's data, advertising and opinion.

Not that others wouldn't and don't manipulate the market and lobby policy, and exploit humans in bad ways, but the basic precept makes it that Facebook needs to protect something fundamentally more immoral than others, hardened behavior and corruption is somewhat to be expected.

Re: Careless People

#522

Post by [deleted] »

busterarm wrote: post #504
noitpmeder wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not really. Any FB experience post-2011 is a pretty strong signal that the potential hire has a weak ethical foundation, if not overtly unethical inclinations. Maybe if you only interned there or it was your first job and you left before 2 years.

[deleted]

Re: Careless People

#523

Post by daseiner1 »

camdenreslink wrote: post #505
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.

Hard work and talent are related to success. But when the outcome is "become the richest person in the world", hard work and talent are a rounding error compared to luck. Does anybody really think Zuckerberg is even in the top 5% hardest working or talented people in the world? A decision as inconsequential as rewriting Facebook to a different language in the early days could have derailed the entire enterprise. Ther…

Yes, I would absolutely consider Zuckerberg as one of the top 5% most talented people in the world. Frankly, that isn’t a particularly high bar whatsoever. Haven't you ever been amongst the general populace?

You’ve committed the typical sin on this site of overrating technical prowess and underrating business acumen. There’s a reason so many founder CEOs from his era ended up getting sacked while he’s maintained control and Meta has become the behemoth it is. Next you're going to tell us how Steve Jobs was a charlatan and a cheat.

Is the act of buying a lottery ticket a "rounding error" when it comes to winning the powerball?

Re: Careless People

#524

Post by rozap »

noitpmeder wrote: post #483
rozap wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? I think it's pretty normal to use your moral compass to take into account someone's work history during hiring decisions.

Did they work for a tobacco company, advertising harmful products to kids? I think that's bad, but you're right, it is a personal bias. Some argue that tobacco is actually fine.

Did they work for a buy-now-pay-later company which sneakily traps people into debt cycles? Again, I think that's bad, but it is just my opinion. And some people can argue that bnpl companies are good because they provide low cost* loans to consumers to buy Coachella tickets. *until you miss a payment then you're fucked.

Did they work for the Trump 2024 Campaign? Plenty of people voted for him so it's just like, my opinion man.

Or, did they work for Facebook, an antisocial, anticompetitive growth at all costs company which is absolutely a net drain on society. But hey - they did produce, er, buy, a messaging app which allows you to keep in touch with your family.

And I could go on and on.

There are plenty of smart people with a moral compass. I've been blessed to have worked with many - truly it has been a joy. There are also unscrupulous, smart people who will do any work as long as the money is there. I've also worked with those types, and it's not as pleasant. The best projects I've been a part of have had teams of people who truly care about the customer, they aren't trying to outsmart or trick them.

Re: Careless People

#525

Post by drumdance »

sokoloff wrote: post #190
lordnacho wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I think that, broadly speaking, hard work and talent strongly predict success. But the circumstances can dramatically affect the magnitude. I have no doubt that Zuck would've been successful in 1880, but not one of the richest people who ever lived. The leverage that comes from being an introverted hacker type was not as great then.

Re: Careless People

#526

Post by armandososa »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #435
armandososa wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you find the author/narrator very unlikable? [mild spoilers ahead] I was tempted to stop reading after the shark attack story when she wakes up in the hospital and declares "I saved myself". Ugh. But I think it makes narrative sense: why would a good person stay at the company after all she has witnessed? It also makes the company leaders seem so much worse in comparison. One more thing: Is it credible that she h…

> why would a good person stay at the company after all she has witnessed? Wait, is the angle of the book that she’s a good person? That can’t possibly be right… it’s a book about all the horrible things she tried to help Facebook do . The title of the book doesn’t suggest she was disappointed in their morals. It suggests she was disappointed in their ability to do their jobs.

> Wait, is the angle of the book that she’s a good person? That can’t possibly be right…

Well, she paints herself as an idealist who believes Facebook can be an agent of [presumably positive] change, so at least she thinks of herself as good in some sense of the word. That’s what I found intriguing about that shark attack prologue. If it had been written by a third person or if this were a novelization, it would feel like a character-revealing moment, telling the audience that she’s actually selfish and self-absorbed, and setting expectations for her behavior before getting into the story.

Re: Careless People

#527

Post by chairmansteve »

sokoloff wrote: post #190
lordnacho wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

It's obviously a combination of talent, hard work and luck. Usually in that order. The luck in Zuck's case was being in the right place at the right time. Obviously he made the most of it with talent and hard work.

Re: Careless People

#528

Post by camdenreslink »

daseiner1 wrote: post #523
camdenreslink wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard work and talent are related to success. But when the outcome is "become the richest person in the world", hard work and talent are a rounding error compared to luck. Does anybody really think Zuckerberg is even in the top 5% hardest working or talented people in the world? A decision as inconsequential as rewriting Facebook to a different language in the early days could have derailed the entire enterprise. Ther…

Yes, I would absolutely consider Zuckerberg as one of the top 5% most talented people in the world. Frankly, that isn’t a particularly high bar whatsoever. Haven't you ever been amongst the general populace? You’ve committed the typical sin on this site of overrating technical prowess and underrating business acumen. There’s a reason so many founder CEOs from his era ended up getting sacked while he’s maintained cont…

I think you underrate the talent of people in the general populace. There are very talented people everywhere. It rarely translates into wealth.

By the way, the act of buying a power ball ticket is essentially a rounding error. The odds of winning the grand prize (which is what we're talking about here) is 1 in 292,201,338. That is for all intents and purposes the same as zero.

Re: Careless People

#529

Post by noitpmeder »

rozap wrote: post #524
noitpmeder wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Really? I think it's pretty normal to use your moral compass to take into account someone's work history during hiring decisions. Did they work for a tobacco company, advertising harmful products to kids? I think that's bad, but you're right, it is a personal bias. Some argue that tobacco is actually fine. Did they work for a buy-now-pay-later company which sneakily traps people into debt cycles? Again, I think that'…

My prior comment is poorly worded around what my intent was.

I think it's important to separate the person from the machine.

   {company} has done {things I disagree with}, and {candidate} was working for them during this period.
vs

   {candidate} has done {things I disagree with}
Sure there is overlap and gray area, but, not "reject someone's resumè for having any {company}" level.

Re: Careless People

#530

Post by _dark_matter_ »

daseiner1 wrote: post #523
camdenreslink wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard work and talent are related to success. But when the outcome is "become the richest person in the world", hard work and talent are a rounding error compared to luck. Does anybody really think Zuckerberg is even in the top 5% hardest working or talented people in the world? A decision as inconsequential as rewriting Facebook to a different language in the early days could have derailed the entire enterprise. Ther…

Yes, I would absolutely consider Zuckerberg as one of the top 5% most talented people in the world. Frankly, that isn’t a particularly high bar whatsoever. Haven't you ever been amongst the general populace? You’ve committed the typical sin on this site of overrating technical prowess and underrating business acumen. There’s a reason so many founder CEOs from his era ended up getting sacked while he’s maintained cont…

Seriously, I work at a FAANG and Zuck would be in the top 5% most talented people at my company. Hands down. That doesn't take away from all the things he's clearly _terrible_ at, one being actually caring about other people, but still clearly an exceptional engineer and business mind.
Post reply on HN