5 ms·

When the Genius Men of Silicon Valley Suddenly Don't Seem So Smart

27 points by nsaslideface 10y ago

ar15saveslives 10y ago
For the author, "smart" means "do as I say, now".
Randgalt 10y ago
I've never seen so much question begging in my life. Maybe, just maybe, Thiel doesn't believe the charges against Trump. Additionally, the hypocrisy is appalling. People gladly write checks to Hillary Clinton who over the past 30+ years has defended, provided cover and attacked the accusers of her husband who is in the exact same league as Donald Trump.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  >charges "Allegations" is maybe the better word here. I hate HRC and I think it's very likely Trump has sexually assaulted at least one woman before, but I also think it's shitty to start a political narrative based on hearsay and the type of empty gloating that lots of men do in private.
ebcode 10y ago
>Trump is an ideological figure with very few actual political views. His popularity is due almost entirely to his cultivation of American hate. I think this is spot on. If someone says something hateful, and I retweet it, am I not also saying something hateful? Say I don't retweet the actual comment, but instead respond w/ "Have some money." Is that not still an endorsement of the hateful speech? Ultimately, I think we can view hatred as a kind of ignorance and fearfulness of the unknown, and therefore as a kind of stupidity. It logically follows that endorsing a stupid candidate is itself a form of stupidity.
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  Your definition of "hateful" can differ from mine.
  - ebcode 10y ago
    Fair enough, but that only goes so far. The usefulness of language depends on there being commonly held definitions between the speakers. If I said, "your definition of 'broom' can differ from mine", things would start to fall apart pretty quickly. Now that our (US) government is in the business of defining our words for us (eg, "terrorist", "hate speech"), I think it would be wise for us commoners to start working out amongst ourselves what we want these words to actually mean so that we can agree on their definitions. My current definition of "hateful" would be anything that points to some "other" as "less than". What's your definition?
    - MK999 10y ago
      The word hate is no longer useful, because it's become a shorthand pejorative to be wielded by the Left. Don't like Obama, you hate black people, don't like Hillary you hate women, etc.
    - ar15saveslives 10y ago
      Well, when a person says "I don't give a damn about diversity" - for me it's far from "hate speech". Or when Trump insults some journalist, it's stupid and childish, but it's just an insult, not hate speech. And the fact that the journalist is a woman, doesn't make him "sexist". My definition of hate speech is when Trump says "hey, {black people,white people,men,women,gays} are garbage, they shouldn't have rights, and I don't want them to exist". Does he say that?
      - ebcode 10y ago
        Of course he doesn't say that. Or at least he hasn't yet (that we know of). I can see that my definition of "hate speech" is much, much broader than yours, however. So it will only be a time-sink for us to try to come to any agreement in the immediate future. That said, I appreciate your response and will give it some thought.
relics443 10y ago
I'm getting sick of seeing SV expose how many stupid people are among its ranks (on both sides). The whole world used to think we were smart people. Yay, election year ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
cypher303 10y ago
I rarely comment on the internet, but HN is one of the few sites that I frequent during micro-breaks at work, and this sort of content is making me feel like HN is becoming a NSFW site to visit. My concern has nothing to do with your stated opinion in the article, but rather that the article doesn't provide enough technical value to warrant being safe for me to read while on the job. Articles that, for instance, inform me about a root key update, or a critical vulnerability in the Linux kernel, provide immediate value to me and my employer. Opinion pieces like these though, not only lack technical value, but are a time (money) drain on my company. Please keep HN safe for work for those of us who care about things like that.
- Randgalt 10y ago
  +1
- dreamdu5t 10y ago
  Lately HN seems dominated by politics, opinion pieces, and pop-sci stuff. Someone should do a simple keyword analysis of the last 5 years and see if this is true. Some sort of HN trend analysis would be a great weekend project.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
  +1. I think the best response to this particular HN article is to walk away and hope they stop posting stuff like this.
- angersock 10y ago
  If you actually value technical content, there are better sites. HN has been catering primarily to entrepreneurs for the last several years. The community normalized political discussion and content marketing a while back, and from those depths it is difficult to return. I have theories on how sites like this evolve, but will refrain from brain-dumping unless folks are interested.
  - ceterum_censeo 10y ago
    I'd like to hear your theories. Also, a few suggestions for the sites that you mention.
abysmallyideal 10y ago
Isn't SiliconnValley just the wall Street of techbro snowflakes and startup culture? Who cares what they say. These billionaires don't matter. They don't fund the core advancements that matter, they're just data traders. Even if they pooled all their money it would be dwarfed by real technologists. Not political hucksters and new wall Street aka SV. Surely, SV is just a cliquey jock and yacht club. Bunch of grandfathered aristocratic rich kids. What a joke.
angersock 10y ago
So, up front, I think there is more than a little schadenfreude to be enjoyed here. I'll skip that, though. The main thing here is that we chose this future. We built platforms for 140 sniping, and we built censorship tools that helped enable filter bubbles. We built ad tools to monetize rage and not journalism. We bent over prostrate at the ideas of "equality", diversity, and freedom--all with the best of intentions! We ousted Brendan Eich, we gave Thiel a pass because he was outed by Gawker, and now? Now they're going against the guys that sign our checks and cheerlead our endeavors. If this is finally a step too far, if this is a gross misrepresentation of reality or a hit piece, we're late to the party. The time to have avoided this was years ago. Bunch of hypocrites.
rboyd 10y ago
Advocating firing and industry shunning over political opinion seems way more dangerous to me than offensive speech. What are we becoming?
- sharkjacobs 10y ago
  Does advocating firing and industry shunning seem more dangerous than advocating torture, or advocating imprisonment of political opponents?
  - rboyd 10y ago
    With so many legitimate attacks to launch against Trump, generalizing his threats of holding Hillary accountable for the emails and equating this with imprisonment of political opponents seems so awkward to me.
ar15saveslives 10y ago
> Ellen Pao, the former CEO of Reddit who was effectively ousted by the site’s users because she’s an Asian American woman Sorry what?
- Randgalt 10y ago
  That was her side of the story. Reddit had a different side. This line shows what an awful article this is. Utterly un-objective. Here's some reference on Ellen Pao: * http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher-ellen-pao http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch... * https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-13/reddit-s-ellen-pao-can-only-blame-herself https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-13/reddit-s-...
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    As someone who read the entire Pao shitshow on reddit, I literally never once saw anyone mention or make racist/sexist remarks about her being Asian or a woman. This is frankly remarkable considering how shitty the internet can be. This isn't to say those remarks didn't happen, I am 100% sure they did, but it was less than 0.0001% of the sentiment.
Torgo 10y ago
Voting for the lesser of two evils is a tactical voting maneuver and you don't necessarily believe anything at all about what a candidate affirmatively supports. This is as applicable to one side as the other. Almost all of my friends are supporting the same candidate, and none of them are doing so because of her positions.
blackflame7000 10y ago
In this election, the only people who don't seem so smart(besides the candidates) are people who insist on being oblivious to their own candidates severe faults. There is plenty wrong with either candidate and the only people who look foolish are those who insist on trying to shine a shit and sell it as gold.
trhway 10y ago
it isn't about smartness in the sense of IQ. It is just completely different view on where society/economy and the whole civilization should go. Thiel vs. Musk. Conservative collapse vs. progressive expansion. Ant/termite colony (like those that have been at the same place for 1000+ years) vs. interplanetary civilization. Conformal uniformity vs. diversity in the widest sense of the word. Succumbing to the fear of change vs. embracing and riding that fear like a wave, converting the fear into the source of energy.
- throwaway274739 10y ago
  This.
whack 10y ago
I am usually far more civil, but this article is idiotic. The idea of having political litmus tests as a condition of employment, is the kind of idiotic lunacy I would expect from Trump, not his detractors.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Really? Because overwhelmingly the sentiment I have heard is Hillary supporters saying they would fire or de-friend anyone who's a Trump supporter. Trump supporters seem to dislike Hillary, not Hillary supporters.
  - whack 10y ago
    Well, it's a lot easier to discriminate when you're in the majority/winning side. But yeah, my previous comment was referencing Trump directly, not his supporters. I have far more respect for the average Trump voter than I do for Trump himself.
sharkjacobs 10y ago
I would be upset if any company fired a developer or even manager for having the wrong political opinions. But if a company broke ties with a part time partner, who was a public representative of the company, because the partner publicly, actively, and materially support a presidential candidate who the company publicly believe "represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants ... the Constitution, the Republic, ... human decency ... [and] national security" then I don't think that's a problem.
samfbid 10y ago
Is there a reason this post got removed from the HN index?

27 points by nsaslideface 10y ago

For the author, "smart" means "do as I say, now".

I've never seen so much question begging in my life. Maybe, just maybe, Thiel doesn't believe the charges against Trump. Additionally, the hypocrisy is appalling. People gladly write checks to Hillary Clinton who over the past 30+ years has defended, provided cover and attacked the accusers of her husband who is in the exact same league as Donald Trump.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
whamlastxmas 10y ago
>charges "Allegations" is maybe the better word here. I hate HRC and I think it's very likely Trump has sexually assaulted at least one woman before, but I also think it's shitty to start a political narrative based on hearsay and the type of empty gloating that lots of men do in private.

ebcode 10y ago

>Trump is an ideological figure with very few actual political views. His popularity is due almost entirely to his cultivation of American hate. I think this is spot on. If someone says something hateful, and I retweet it, am I not also saying something hateful? Say I don't retweet the actual comment, but instead respond w/ "Have some money." Is that not still an endorsement of the hateful speech? Ultimately, I think we can view hatred as a kind of ignorance and fearfulness of the unknown, and therefore as a kind of stupidity. It logically follows that endorsing a stupid candidate is itself a form of stupidity.

ar15saveslives 10y ago
Your definition of "hateful" can differ from mine.
- ebcode 10y ago
  Fair enough, but that only goes so far. The usefulness of language depends on there being commonly held definitions between the speakers. If I said, "your definition of 'broom' can differ from mine", things would start to fall apart pretty quickly. Now that our (US) government is in the business of defining our words for us (eg, "terrorist", "hate speech"), I think it would be wise for us commoners to start working out amongst ourselves what we want these words to actually mean so that we can agree on their definitions. My current definition of "hateful" would be anything that points to some "other" as "less than". What's your definition?
  - MK999 10y ago
    The word hate is no longer useful, because it's become a shorthand pejorative to be wielded by the Left. Don't like Obama, you hate black people, don't like Hillary you hate women, etc.
  - ar15saveslives 10y ago
    Well, when a person says "I don't give a damn about diversity" - for me it's far from "hate speech". Or when Trump insults some journalist, it's stupid and childish, but it's just an insult, not hate speech. And the fact that the journalist is a woman, doesn't make him "sexist". My definition of hate speech is when Trump says "hey, {black people,white people,men,women,gays} are garbage, they shouldn't have rights, and I don't want them to exist". Does he say that?
    - ebcode 10y ago
      Of course he doesn't say that. Or at least he hasn't yet (that we know of). I can see that my definition of "hate speech" is much, much broader than yours, however. So it will only be a time-sink for us to try to come to any agreement in the immediate future. That said, I appreciate your response and will give it some thought.

relics443 10y ago

I'm getting sick of seeing SV expose how many stupid people are among its ranks (on both sides). The whole world used to think we were smart people. Yay, election year ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

cypher303 10y ago

I rarely comment on the internet, but HN is one of the few sites that I frequent during micro-breaks at work, and this sort of content is making me feel like HN is becoming a NSFW site to visit. My concern has nothing to do with your stated opinion in the article, but rather that the article doesn't provide enough technical value to warrant being safe for me to read while on the job. Articles that, for instance, inform me about a root key update, or a critical vulnerability in the Linux kernel, provide immediate value to me and my employer. Opinion pieces like these though, not only lack technical value, but are a time (money) drain on my company. Please keep HN safe for work for those of us who care about things like that.

Randgalt 10y ago
+1
dreamdu5t 10y ago
Lately HN seems dominated by politics, opinion pieces, and pop-sci stuff. Someone should do a simple keyword analysis of the last 5 years and see if this is true. Some sort of HN trend analysis would be a great weekend project.
DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
+1. I think the best response to this particular HN article is to walk away and hope they stop posting stuff like this.
angersock 10y ago
If you actually value technical content, there are better sites. HN has been catering primarily to entrepreneurs for the last several years. The community normalized political discussion and content marketing a while back, and from those depths it is difficult to return. I have theories on how sites like this evolve, but will refrain from brain-dumping unless folks are interested.
- ceterum_censeo 10y ago
  I'd like to hear your theories. Also, a few suggestions for the sites that you mention.

abysmallyideal 10y ago

Isn't SiliconnValley just the wall Street of techbro snowflakes and startup culture? Who cares what they say. These billionaires don't matter. They don't fund the core advancements that matter, they're just data traders. Even if they pooled all their money it would be dwarfed by real technologists. Not political hucksters and new wall Street aka SV. Surely, SV is just a cliquey jock and yacht club. Bunch of grandfathered aristocratic rich kids. What a joke.

angersock 10y ago

So, up front, I think there is more than a little schadenfreude to be enjoyed here. I'll skip that, though. The main thing here is that we chose this future. We built platforms for 140 sniping, and we built censorship tools that helped enable filter bubbles. We built ad tools to monetize rage and not journalism. We bent over prostrate at the ideas of "equality", diversity, and freedom--all with the best of intentions! We ousted Brendan Eich, we gave Thiel a pass because he was outed by Gawker, and now? Now they're going against the guys that sign our checks and cheerlead our endeavors. If this is finally a step too far, if this is a gross misrepresentation of reality or a hit piece, we're late to the party. The time to have avoided this was years ago. Bunch of hypocrites.

rboyd 10y ago

Advocating firing and industry shunning over political opinion seems way more dangerous to me than offensive speech. What are we becoming?

sharkjacobs 10y ago
Does advocating firing and industry shunning seem more dangerous than advocating torture, or advocating imprisonment of political opponents?
- rboyd 10y ago
  With so many legitimate attacks to launch against Trump, generalizing his threats of holding Hillary accountable for the emails and equating this with imprisonment of political opponents seems so awkward to me.

ar15saveslives 10y ago

> Ellen Pao, the former CEO of Reddit who was effectively ousted by the site’s users because she’s an Asian American woman Sorry what?

Randgalt 10y ago
That was her side of the story. Reddit had a different side. This line shows what an awful article this is. Utterly un-objective. Here's some reference on Ellen Pao: * http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher-ellen-pao http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch... * https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-13/reddit-s-ellen-pao-can-only-blame-herself https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-13/reddit-s-...
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  As someone who read the entire Pao shitshow on reddit, I literally never once saw anyone mention or make racist/sexist remarks about her being Asian or a woman. This is frankly remarkable considering how shitty the internet can be. This isn't to say those remarks didn't happen, I am 100% sure they did, but it was less than 0.0001% of the sentiment.

Torgo 10y ago

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a tactical voting maneuver and you don't necessarily believe anything at all about what a candidate affirmatively supports. This is as applicable to one side as the other. Almost all of my friends are supporting the same candidate, and none of them are doing so because of her positions.

blackflame7000 10y ago

In this election, the only people who don't seem so smart(besides the candidates) are people who insist on being oblivious to their own candidates severe faults. There is plenty wrong with either candidate and the only people who look foolish are those who insist on trying to shine a shit and sell it as gold.

trhway 10y ago

it isn't about smartness in the sense of IQ. It is just completely different view on where society/economy and the whole civilization should go. Thiel vs. Musk. Conservative collapse vs. progressive expansion. Ant/termite colony (like those that have been at the same place for 1000+ years) vs. interplanetary civilization. Conformal uniformity vs. diversity in the widest sense of the word. Succumbing to the fear of change vs. embracing and riding that fear like a wave, converting the fear into the source of energy.

throwaway274739 10y ago
This.

whack 10y ago

I am usually far more civil, but this article is idiotic. The idea of having political litmus tests as a condition of employment, is the kind of idiotic lunacy I would expect from Trump, not his detractors.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Really? Because overwhelmingly the sentiment I have heard is Hillary supporters saying they would fire or de-friend anyone who's a Trump supporter. Trump supporters seem to dislike Hillary, not Hillary supporters.
- whack 10y ago
  Well, it's a lot easier to discriminate when you're in the majority/winning side. But yeah, my previous comment was referencing Trump directly, not his supporters. I have far more respect for the average Trump voter than I do for Trump himself.

sharkjacobs 10y ago

I would be upset if any company fired a developer or even manager for having the wrong political opinions. But if a company broke ties with a part time partner, who was a public representative of the company, because the partner publicly, actively, and materially support a presidential candidate who the company publicly believe "represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants ... the Constitution, the Republic, ... human decency ... [and] national security" then I don't think that's a problem.

samfbid 10y ago

Is there a reason this post got removed from the HN index?