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

E Pur Si Muove

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#561

Post by dguaraglia »

Houshalter wrote: post #546
dguaraglia wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore was fired not because his science was flawed, but because he made himself essentially impossible to work with. Would you be "scared" if someone refuses to take a shower for months on end and a company decides to fire them?

What does it say about your industry, if even people with average, moderate positions are "impossible to work with"?

As I explained to conanbatt, the problem is that he put himself in a position of being perceived as biased against women. Even if 90% of the company agreed with him - even if the CEO agreed with him - any Legal department would recommend firing him, rather than have to deal with the liability.

I propose a mental exercise: let's say that Damore had written a similar "manifesto" but instead of concluding that "women are not that interested in engineering" he concluded "black people are not that interested in engineering". Would you see a problem with that? Do you think that might create some friction with fellow engineers of color?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#562

Post by dguaraglia »

Houshalter wrote: post #543
tomtheelder wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. Ehhh. Among my friends/coworkers one of the biggest objections was how dicey a lot of the referenced research was, and how much he was bending or extending conclusions to fit his narrative. At the very best his essay was awful science, but to me it felt more like a half-hearted attempt to cherrypick studies that sort of reinforced h…

It wasn't the strongest possible argument for his case IMO. There are other better studies and statistics I would have referenced. But it was good enough and the points were solid,. That there are observable personality differences between men and women, and we shouldn't expect perfect gender ratios.

> That there are observable personality differences between men and women, and we shouldn't expect perfect gender ratios.

This assumption always bothers me. What do you think defines behavior? Is it purely culture, or purely biology? How do you rule out culture when you don't have a culture that promotes equality?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#563

Post by lutorm »

spenczar5 wrote: post #517
nateabele wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But look at the form of the statement quoted. To paraphrase, 'I disagree with this idea , therefore any proponent of it is a bad person '. The underlying assumption (or one of many) is that all perspectives have moral judgements attached, and the offended party is the sole arbiter of that judgement. In other words, it's one thing to question progress, it's another thing to say 'I disagree with this form of progress,…

I don't read it that way. I read it as: - Extending human lifespan harms the environment. - Harming the environment is ethically wrong. (this is elided) - Therefore, Extending human lifespans is ethically wrong. This is muddy thinking and takes a great leap when it ignores the ethical _benefits_ of extending human lifespans, but I don't think it is indefensible.

No, the issue is not that extending human lifespans is ethically wrong (it may or may not be, but that's an opinion about research.) It's claiming that people working on such research are unethical people.

A very basic part about good-faith discussions is to discuss the topic at hand and not the people having the discussion.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#564

Post by justifier »

throwaway34689 wrote: post #148

Of the places I've lived (not necessarily in order): - Deep South (18 years - born + raised) - Boston MA (5 years @ college then job) - NYC (6+ years) - Los Angeles (1yr @ startup) - San Diego (1yr @ startup) - Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company) I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never enc…

I want to respond with a bender quote, "this is the worst kind of oppression, the kind against me"

But honestly your comment is so vague I'm unsure exactly what you want to be heard from your words

Can you clarify what kinds of oppression you noticed in SF and the kinds you noticed in other places

When you speak so indistinctly everyone is forced to fill the holes themselves

Those that agree that SF is oppressive will fill those holes with their own aggravating experiences and those that see SF as progressive will read your comment as "I just want to tell my coworkers that their lifestyle is offensive to god but SF is too intolerant of me and my wants"

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#565

Post by lutorm »

untog wrote: post #516
cirgue wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "you are unethical for doing this research" is very different from saying "I think there are serious problems with extending human life". One is a legitimate criticism and is vital to public debate. The other is name calling.

Sure. But does it really matter? Are we that sensitive? I mean, the essay makes the argument that allowing disparagement of gay people might be a necessary in order to allow the investigation of novel physics (which, wtf) - why not also make the argument that being called unethical might be a necessary cost to allow the investigation of life extension? Is the idea worth perusing? Then you can probably stand to be cal…

It does matter if you want to actually talk about it. If you're just interested in making yourself feel better by calling other people names, then maybe not. But it's very basic human psychology to be less inclined to hear people out and take their concerns seriously if they call you names, and it certainly doesn't signal to me that it's worth my time explaining my position to you.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#566

Post by Gargoyle »

dang wrote: post #525
Gargoyle wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the paid moderator of this site would respond like this is unsurprising. And yet the position of moderator is one that could do wonders for setting a better culture.

Maybe someday I can persuade you that it's a harder problem than it seems. But my point was that the things people post on HN no more represent YC, let alone Sam, than YouTube comments represent Larry and Sergey.

I understand taking leadership to change a culture is a difficult task. But when you have the actual means and influence to do it and choose not to do so, you do hold some responsibility for the results.

HN does in fact reflect on YC and Sam, whether you want it to or not. It's their site. And in a different way than Youtube is Larry and Sergey's site (something I at least hope you understand), though even they don't escape responsibility for what shows up there.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#567

Post by leroy_masochist »

olympus wrote: post #550
leroy_masochist wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that, and he runs a company whose value proposition is very explicitly tied to SV being the best place to start a startup, so it would be kind of awkward if he moved.

From the YC FAQ: "Can we do it without moving to where you are? Sorry, no. We tried this once, and by Demo Day that startup was way behind the rest. What we do, we have to do in person. We would not be doing a startup a favor by not making them come to YC events in person." Their stated reason is more about dealing with people face to face, and less about SV. It also sounds like they only tried it once, which probabl…

Agreed on the face-to-face point, but YC also used to have very strongly worded language on the FAQ that said, essentially, that setting your startup on the path to success meant moving to SV, due to the strong network effects. I can't find it now (probably because they've updated it) but it pretty closely tracked the language in this PG essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/startuphubs.html

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#568

Post by conanbatt »

dguaraglia wrote: post #561
Houshalter wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it say about your industry, if even people with average, moderate positions are "impossible to work with"?

As I explained to conanbatt, the problem is that he put himself in a position of being perceived as biased against women. Even if 90% of the company agreed with him - even if the CEO agreed with him - any Legal department would recommend firing him, rather than have to deal with the liability. I propose a mental exercise: let's say that Damore had written a similar "manifesto" but instead of concluding that "women ar…

What if Damore had been a woman. What do you think would have happened then.

This is just en exercise in public outrage, not in morality, responsibility or the application of ideals.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#569

Post by perl4ever »

prepend wrote: post #518
macrael wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not a long history of vegans killing people for their meat eating beliefs. You are wrong to equate the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LG...

But isn’t it simplistic to equate all transphobic people with murderers who commit violence against trans people? Would you also be scared of working with men because they typically commit homicides more than women? I think being afraid of your life simply because someone is a bigot who hasn’t exhibited any violent behavior is on you, not the bigot. A small number of bigots are violent and dangerous, that doesn’t mea…

A bigot, by what I think is a reasonable definition, is someone whose prejudices are resistant to contrary evidence. If someone is irrational in that way, then it is rational for me not to trust them, especially if their prejudices concern me directly. The fact that everyone, including me, has their own prejudices is not germane.

If someone is angry about something all the time that really (from my POV) shouldn't concern them, it doesn't make them a murderer that should be locked up right now, no, but it could nevertheless reasonably make me wonder if they are dangerous or will "go postal" at some point.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#570

Post by conanbatt »

dguaraglia wrote: post #558
conanbatt wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree entirely and vehemently to what you are saying. > he made himself essentially impossible to work with Who told you this? Im sure there were 100's of engineers, including female co-workers, at google that would have worked with him. But lets play along, lets say that effectively no single person at google would voluntarily let himself work with Damore. Why do you think that is? Because 99.9% disagree with h…

> But lets play along, lets say that effectively no single person at google would voluntarily let himself work with Damore. Why do you think that is? Because 99.9% disagree with his essay? Or because he became a target for scorn in the public eye that overpunished him? I'll give you a hint: if you are a female engineer, and you are put as a report for Damore, would you ever have a lingering feeling he might be biased…

> I'll give you a hint: if you are a female engineer, and you are put as a report for Damore, would you ever have a lingering feeling he might be biased against you if he decided to promote your male peer instead of you?

I don't know. Maybe. What we do know if that if someone else shares the same opinion of Damore within google, we will never hear about it , and the bias effect you attribute will still happen but there would be no way to address it.

Not only that, but it might have exacerbated it: someone with the fear of being perceived bias and losing his job will want as few women in his team as possible. How about that possibility?

> Wrong. He was fired because he publicly said "fuck it, I don't believe that women are equal and you have to suck it up." That's his prerogative, but doesn't entitle him to a job anywhere.

He said it multiple days before he got fired. The timeline doesn't add up!

Post reply on HN