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

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: undefined

#71

Post by strbean »

lordnacho wrote: post #22
ta9000 wrote: post #2

Or people are just seeing the real person. Before the filter was needed but now that views tangential to his are more mainstream it’s easier for him to let the full nut-job out. Same with the CEO of Salesforce.

I still can't decide which mechanism is at work: Person is a nutter -> nutters more likely to be at the extremes of achievement (success and failure) -> you see the successes -> there's a bunch of insane people who became billionaires versus: Some people win at the success game -> they start to think they are special -> environment encourages them towards extremes of thought -> bunch of crazy billionaires One way the…

Don't forget selection bias. There are plenty of ultra-rich people who are not, as far as we know, nutters. We tend to talk about the nutters more precisely because they are nutters.

In the case of Thiel, I think his particular flavor of craziness is key to his success. I believe his paranoia was a major factor in the founding of Palantir.

Re: undefined

#73

Post by JohnFen »

lacker wrote: post #6

Personally, I'm not religious. But 20% of Americans believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Is it really so crazy for one venture capitalist to believe that the Antichrist is real? Part of the freedom of religion is accepting that other Americans really do have religious beliefs that differ from your own sometimes, and that's okay. It doesn't mean you need to support the policies that he supports. But we d…

> Part of the freedom of religion is accepting that other Americans really do have religious beliefs that differ from your own sometimes, and that's okay.

Absolutely.

However, another part of freedom of religion is that people shouldn't impose their religious beliefs on others, which is precisely what the politically energetic Christians are trying to do. Thiel is doing it as well, but in a slightly more indirect way.

Re: undefined

#74

Post by biophysboy »

PaulHoule wrote: post #3
ta9000 wrote: post #2

Or people are just seeing the real person. Before the filter was needed but now that views tangential to his are more mainstream it’s easier for him to let the full nut-job out. Same with the CEO of Salesforce.

One morning early this year there was a black sign stuck on the front door with some edgelord crap from Palantir: https://mastodon.social/@UP8/114356523256174674 I feel like a real dope because Thiel’s minions got me to buy a Rene Gerard book.

The 1st paragraph of this poster makes me wonder if companies like Palantir were partially created out of guilt.

Re: undefined

#75

Post by cogman10 »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #67
cogman10 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The aide money wasn't there to fix things, it was there for soft power. Once you understand that it makes a whole lot more sense why corruption was never really addressed and things didn't really get better. The way it works was simple "Do what we want you to do OR ELSE we'll pull your aide. It'd be a shame if that happened". That is ultimately the power that allowed the US to keep these countries in check. To make t…

That's how it started but over time the program was captured by bureaucrat insiders to line their own pockets. It won't let me reply, but I agree. I think when organizations are new and shiny the stakeholders are excited and pay attention. Over time attention shifts to the new shiny thing and only inertia and self dealing keep the organization together.

Bureaucrat insiders lining their pockets has been happening from the beginning. That's a part of the soft power. It keeps everyone in line so long as the money pipeline keeps on flowing.

One of the most famous scandals was the Teapot Dome scandal of 1923 [1], long predating UAID (1961). It has exactly the same make up of corruption that people critique USAID of having.

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

Re: undefined

#76

Post by throwaway48476 »

wat10000 wrote: post #41
luckydonkey wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now they have money and power and use both in pretty obscene ways, like starving children in Africa to death by yanking the aid that was keeping them alive away. It’s because there’s lot of corruption in places receiving aid, look it up. Fixing problems is not as simple as giving someone money, there needs to be lots of accountability, which is often missing. There are fake NGOs and non-profits which essentially tr…

Is corruption so evil that it's worth killing a huge number of people to reduce it? Aid being diverted to people who don't need it is a real problem, but solving it by cutting off the aid is rather extreme. As far as the debt goes, the amounts involved are inconsequential. You're going to cause all those deaths to delay sovereign default or hyperinflation by a few hours.

Moralizing people have some really bizarre moral utility functions. Somehow more people is always more better and any kind of finite reality does not apply. It's like a moral ponzi scheme.
Post reply on HN