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

531–540 of 575 posts

Re: Careless People

#531

Post by _dark_matter_ »

bombcar wrote: post #424
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…

> One more thing: Is it credible that she had such a high profile job for so long and still be worried about money? Read threads at bogleheads for a month or so. The eighth post that is a variation on "we have fifteen million dollars in cash, and more in stock, can we afford to buy a used 2008 Accord" and you'll go insane.

Cash in USD? They aren't hedged at all against hyperinflation. Wait for a few more gold bars before buying that Accord.

Re: Careless People

#532

Post by BobaFloutist »

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…

The United States has ~4.25% of the world population, but 8 of the 10 richest people in the world live in the United States.

Even if you just take the advantage of being born in the United States (which, fine, exclude Musk from that list then) 7 of the 10 people on the list, including Zuckerberg, are among 5% "luckiest" people in the world just based on where they were born.

This is eliminating any luck they got from hereditary wealth, geographical location, and catching the surge of value in their respective industry at the exact right time.

Re: Careless People

#533

Post by BobaFloutist »

grandempire wrote: post #445
aoanevdus wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In pure math at a school like Harvard, the standout kids like the ones in that quote are probably trying to become tenured math professors. There are very few such positions available. You can shoot for the stars, and if you succeed, make about the same as the average software engineer. More likely, get stuck a postdoc. So most students give up pure math at some point. If you realized you weren’t cut out for it in fr…

Math can also be taught very young with compounding effect, but you’re very unlikely to be exposed to the coaching and expertise at a young age. Of course the few in the world who combine aptitude with exposure are the kind of people you will find at Harvard. If you’re not one of them you may be a decade behind. I also had a math professor who believed in extreme differences within the research community. He said onl…

It's because it's considered settling for lesser to "sell out to industry."

Kinda reminds me of the old "amateur athlete" paradigm.

It's not that you can't get a good job with a math PhD, it's that you can't get a good job and the respect of your peers/community. I'm sure there are plenty of companies that would be thrilled to hire math PhDs, they just don't also offer a ton of opportunities to work on cutting edge (math) research and publish papers.

Re: Careless People

#534

Post by [deleted] »

gr__or wrote: post #460
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?

[deleted]

Re: Careless People

#535

Post by ycombinatrix »

lifefeed wrote: post #493

This is a small bit, and I don't know anything about Zuckerberg's personal life, but "he refuses to get out of bed before noon" is normally more a sign of depression than laziness.

True but we don't know if the dude is getting drunk every night like the CEO from Ex Machina

Re: Careless People

#536

Post by nfRfqX5n »

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'…

Those comparisons are completely disingenuous

Lots of products came out of Facebook that have no moral implications at all

Re: Careless People

#537

Post by ewzimm »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #473
Llamamoe wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No im saying dominance hierarchies are the natural order of things and it’s ingrained in biology. Pretending that hierarchy doesn’t matter and that you don’t care where you are in that hierarchy is lying to yourself. It’s like saying the janitor is equal in respect to the software engineer. We don’t like to admit but the janitor is less respected and looked down upon. I’m annoyed by people who pretend it doesn’t matt…

I don’t know if some people are just wired differently, but I can back up the feeling of not caring at all where I fall in a hierarchy or how much people respect or don’t respect me.

The things I find most thrilling always relate to being challenged. Finding someone better than me qualifies. Having ideas challenged or being proven wrong are the most positive experience I’ve had, especially being forced to change deeply held beliefs. I mention this because it’s one of those things that I always hear people say that everyone hates, but I’ve always felt the opposite, just from a pure chemical feeling perspective. I don’t think I could possibly be unique in that experience.

Re: Careless People

#538

Post by routercat0 »

krapp wrote: post #172
Jensson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism means all the wealth goes to those with the most capital, while free markets means the wealth flows freely in all directions I don't understand this distinction, why wouldn't capital accumulate under free markets? The freer the market the more capital accumulates. In a freer market that today you would have to pay a massive toll every time you went to the grocery store, because the road owner has monopol…

>I don't understand this distinction, why wouldn't capital accumulate under free markets? It would, which is why businesses support deregulation - not because they believe in vigorous competition for the sake of consumers, but because they want as little friction and consequence standing between themselves and oligarchy as possible. A market in which the wealth "flows freely in all directions" is socialist, not capit…

[flagged]

Re: Careless People

#539

Post by [deleted] »

bix6 wrote: post #509
miiiiiike wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how moments can go from "we were playing a game when.." to "The New York Times is covering a game we played 15 years ago". What I've heard from people who were in the game was that he wanted to go to bed so he was trying to negotiate a quick end to the game. There was a time at a con where I did something similar (i.e. we had to finish, we couldn't just leave the game setup and play later.) Everything is v…

I don’t understand why people try and justify or defend these tech villains. What has Mark done to defend you? Besides harvest and sell your data.

[deleted]

Re: Careless People

#540

Post by miiiiiike »

bix6 wrote: post #509
miiiiiike wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how moments can go from "we were playing a game when.." to "The New York Times is covering a game we played 15 years ago". What I've heard from people who were in the game was that he wanted to go to bed so he was trying to negotiate a quick end to the game. There was a time at a con where I did something similar (i.e. we had to finish, we couldn't just leave the game setup and play later.) Everything is v…

I don’t understand why people try and justify or defend these tech villains. What has Mark done to defend you? Besides harvest and sell your data.

I don't care about Mark Zuckerberg. I don't use Facebook, Instagram, or anything else Meta. I avoid it all, actually.

I'll turn around on you: Why defend people who will distort every utterance just to score points on whatever is in the public's cross-hairs at the moment? Why support it? Why defend it?

Saying that a statement isn't accurate isn't the same as defending or holding water for the subject of the statement. If Zuckerberg said "the sky was blue" and another person started saying "Zuckerberg is a liar, so obviously the sky can't be blue" you're not defending Zuckerberg by stating that the sky is blue.

The world is in a perpetual information war. People and groups are constantly trying to make their version of reality stick by using every bullshit rhetorical tool at their disposal against whatever person or thing they deem a valid target.

I'm sick of it, almost everyone is sick of it.

Post reply on HN