11 ms·

There was a comment about the political influence and aspirations of certain big names in tech, but it has suddenly disappeared. It contained some criticism of

There was a comment about the political influence and aspirations of certain big names in tech, but it has suddenly disappeared. It contained some criticism of Paul Graham and Sam Altman, but seemed totally reasonable to me -- can anyone say why it was deleted?

aaron-lebo 9y ago
I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house. ...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandiose and not good for society. Sam is 33 and because he's a tech billionaire thinks that he should run the most developed economy in the world? He genuinely believes that people outside of tech and business know who he is? He's qualified, because he's shook hands with the best off of society for the past decade? Why does he deserve that power? Why does Zuckerberg deserve to be president? What makes him qualified? He made a PHP app that got big. Come on. That's what all this boils down to: money and power and a lot of people value that more than anything else in life. How about we be honest with ourselves as individuals and societies and stop enabling that?
- _0ffh 9y ago
  I suppose everyone thinks "Trump did it, why shouldn't I? I'm certainly better than that guy!"... but I think they forget that they weren't playing a successful authority figure on TV for years.
- Iv 9y ago
  Trump lowered the bar so much that most people think they can do a better job than the current president, and are probably right. What they miss is that running as a republican is very different than running as a democrat (as I guess most tech people would want to). Zuckberg would beat Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about that. But he won't be in front of Trump, he would be in front of many experiences politicians who actually have a clue about how one manages a country.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > What they miss is that running as a republican is very different than running as a democrat Yeah the republican primaries are more fair and balanced - we all saw what happened to Bernie in the democratic primaries.
    - mhh__ 9y ago
      I have my doubts that Bernie would have won the primaries even if he was the one being helped. He ended up losing by 3.7e6 votes.
    - whyenot 9y ago
      > we all saw what happened to Bernie in the democratic primaries I don't know what you saw, but I saw Clinton winning 55% of the vote.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        I voted for Bernie in the CA primary. Hillary won the Democratic primary pretty handily. Actually, I was surprised by how well Bernie did. In November, I voted for Hillary.
        eropple 9y ago
        Which, as somebody who voted for Hillary the whole way through, I really appreciate. I wish that the fact-free narratives that came up hadn't helped convince a number of other Bernie supporters not to do the sane thing.
  - pen2l 9y ago
    > Zuckberg would beat Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about that. So, where is this all coming from -- that Zuckerberg wants to run for president? I'll bet my house and every last penny I own, he does not want to be president, he will never run for president. Oh, and he would never win. He's an insanely smart dude, but he hasn't got the charisma to win presidency. (I do think that a lot of people on HN should run for some higher office in gov't, particularly tptacek and rayiner).
- frostburg 9y ago
  I wouldn't want to vote for them, but do you think that your actual politicians are qualified or deep thinkers? By "qualified" I don't mean "better than Trump", that's a very low bar.
- rb2k_ 9y ago
  > Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandiose and not good for society Arnold Schwarzenegger was the Governor of California. At least as far as the 'what makes him qualified' thing goes, apparently that's not a real concern for voters :)
  - mc32 9y ago
    Let's not forget Grey Davis' being a politician didn't help California against rolling brownouts and massive deficits in the 2000s.
    - Applejinx 9y ago
      Yeah, he was powerless against the Uber of its day: Enron. I'm not sure the fault there was Grey Davis's. Seems there was skulduggery afoot (it's actually a really interesting story, and seemingly a perennial one)
    - CalChris 9y ago
      > Let's not forget Grey Davis' being a politician didn't help California against rolling brownouts and massive deficits in the 2000s. The correct spelling is Gray Davis [1]. The rolling brownouts were caused by Enron [2] who was enabled by legislation (AB 1890) that his predecessor Pete Wilson signed in 1996 [3]. People went to jail for that. [4] There were no massive deficits under Davis. When the tech bubble burst in 2001, there was a revenue decline but that's about it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis [2] https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/enron/summary-findings.pdf https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/enron... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
      - mc32 9y ago
        Arianna Huffington has a different take on the issue. Others do as well. Davis blames federal regulation while at the sane time has retrospectively apologized for being slow to act as the crisis began.
- Clanan 9y ago
  I think we see similar behavior with other famous/rich people; Hollywood stars are always involving themselves in politics (and are often surprised when their engagement means nothing). That being said, the point of campaigning for office is to demonstrate why you deserve the votes. Nothing wrong with a young successful guy giving it a try. Who knows - maybe the qualities that made him successful would translate well to governing. If anything, I think we should encourage more non-lawyers to run!
- jsmith0295 9y ago
  The rich white guys you mentioned in this comment are all Jewish, for what it's worth. Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist or a racist here, but trying to pin this on white privilege isn't entirely accurate.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    When it suits the privilege narrative, Jewish people are white.
    - jsmith0295 9y ago
      What's odd to me is that this seems like it should be bad for Jews, and that they wouldn't want this to be the case, and that in general people wouldn't want a minority treated as the majority group in these cases... But instead I've been flagged.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        Because, in general, those who like to point out that someone is Jewish are the alt-right. And they don't point that out because they love Mel Brooks movies and matzo balls.
      - icelancer 9y ago
        Eh, it is what it is. I am politically liberal, all for BLM/LGBT marches, equal rights, believe white privilege is a real thing, etc. Voted for Sanders. Still getting downvoted because the mere mention or skepticism of how privilege is applied attracts the usual attention. As far as I can tell, my Jewish friends are considered white when they are referred to regarding privilege (by the left) and a minority by the alt-right. They get the worst of both worlds. Asian-Americans get it on a similar, if lower level.
- Kutta 9y ago
  The society can't ever be honest and collectively stop enabling whatever. Everyone all the time responds to incentives, and power goes to whoever is lucky and good at collecting votes and support. Competence, technological acumen or vision is an extra. Altman being governor would be a high percentile outcome considering all of this.
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  How does one measure, compare and conclude that California is the most developed economy in the world?
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    GDP per capita probably. If California was a country, it would be on the top 10 list, only beat by some small oil rich countries.
  - adventured 9y ago
    It doesn't make much sense. California doesn't have a super high median income or GDP per capita compared to other rich US states. The US has around a dozen states with median incomes equal to or higher than Switzerland. California ranks #8 in GDP per capita in the US among states. It's around $59,000 for 2017, which is high globally but not particularly high vs the overall US figure of ~$57,000. California ranks near the bottom in education and is 35th in poverty rate. The title of most developed US state goes to Massachusetts most likely. It has a super high GDP per capita and median income, and is generally highly developed in most regards including education, poverty, and median standard of living. The problem is, it's the size of a Scandinavian nation. New Hampshire is even worse: they have one of the world's highest median incomes and GDP per capita figures, but only 1.3 million people.
- jsf666 9y ago
  Most of them aren't "white" but jewish
- wils1245 9y ago
  I welcome it. I'd much rather have a crowded field than what we had in the last election on the Democratic side - a field emptied by the presence of a dominant presumptive nominee. More competition is a good thing.
  - slg 9y ago
    More competition is also how we got Trump on the republican side because the number of candidates lowered the bar for receiving a plurality of the votes. Trump never would have beaten someone like Cruz, Rubio, or even Jeb in a primary straight up.
    - jeffbax 9y ago
      Maybe, but even at the end when it was Trump vs. Cruz vs. Kasich Trump polled well ahead. I don't think that quantity really was the determining factor -- I think Trump is just the natural end state for the way America seems to be at the moment with its massive political division and the inability for either side to treat the other with good intentions. Really agree with this post https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5 https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down...
      - slg 9y ago
        People like voting for winners and it was clear that Trump was going to win the plurality of the vote by that point. It also came at the end of a long and grueling primary that served to normalize Trump and rally establishment republican behind him. There is no way he would have won against a generic republican if the race started with only two candidates.
    - autokad 9y ago
      I dont agree at all, and I do not think the data backs it up. Jeb is a clear loss mono e mono against trump in the primary, no question. the candidates you mentioned only did well in limited/specific geographies (such as their home state). i followed the primaries on both sides, and had you consolidated the votes to trump vs other, trump would have won. its also very unlikely that 'other' would all vote for 'other' if they weren't specifically allowed to vote for someone like Cruz.
- jshelly 9y ago
  I'll be honest I had no idea who Sam Altman is so I read his wikipedia page and I still don't quite understand how he got to where he is today? Was his success started by the Loopt sale?
  - pen2l 9y ago
    He's a very smart guy, according to a lot of people, and he's also nice. He made an app that was reasonably successful, sold it. When in YC, pg recognized his genius... and over time decided he's the guy who should run YC.
  - rurbrbdubebe 9y ago
    He got to where he is today because Paul Graham took him under his wing and made him his de facto son. It's not really a replicable model.
- 11thEarlOfMar 9y ago
  Did you delete that post yourself?
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Yes, there's no funny business going on.
    - granfalloon 9y ago
      Sorry, didn't mean to drag you back into the discussion! I posted my question because I was concerned that maybe a moderator deleted it. I guess I was being a little paranoid!
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Why should all of our leaders be charismatic lawyers? How are they more qualified? Or in some cases, famous actors. The current president's main qualification was inheriting a ton of money and being good at getting in the news. The bar is not terribly high and I think successful tech leaders are probably more qualified than anyone else that shows up. I think the idea of having representatives and leaders is a bit old fashioned to begin with. But if we are going to have them, they should be the most competent intelligent people we can find from outside of politics.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house. ...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandiose and not good for society. Sam is 33 and because he's a tech billionaire thinks that he should run the most developed economy in the world? He genuinely believes that people outside of tech and business know who he is? He's qualified, because he's shook hands with the best off of society for the past decade? Why does he deserve that power? Why does Zuckerberg deserve to be president? What makes him qualified? He made a PHP app that got big. Come on. That's what all this boils down to: money and power and a lot of people value that more than anything else in life. How about we be honest with ourselves as individuals and societies and stop enabling that?

_0ffh 9y ago
I suppose everyone thinks "Trump did it, why shouldn't I? I'm certainly better than that guy!"... but I think they forget that they weren't playing a successful authority figure on TV for years.
Iv 9y ago
Trump lowered the bar so much that most people think they can do a better job than the current president, and are probably right. What they miss is that running as a republican is very different than running as a democrat (as I guess most tech people would want to). Zuckberg would beat Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about that. But he won't be in front of Trump, he would be in front of many experiences politicians who actually have a clue about how one manages a country.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > What they miss is that running as a republican is very different than running as a democrat Yeah the republican primaries are more fair and balanced - we all saw what happened to Bernie in the democratic primaries.
  - mhh__ 9y ago
    I have my doubts that Bernie would have won the primaries even if he was the one being helped. He ended up losing by 3.7e6 votes.
  - whyenot 9y ago
    > we all saw what happened to Bernie in the democratic primaries I don't know what you saw, but I saw Clinton winning 55% of the vote.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      I voted for Bernie in the CA primary. Hillary won the Democratic primary pretty handily. Actually, I was surprised by how well Bernie did. In November, I voted for Hillary.
      - eropple 9y ago
        Which, as somebody who voted for Hillary the whole way through, I really appreciate. I wish that the fact-free narratives that came up hadn't helped convince a number of other Bernie supporters not to do the sane thing.
- pen2l 9y ago
  > Zuckberg would beat Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about that. So, where is this all coming from -- that Zuckerberg wants to run for president? I'll bet my house and every last penny I own, he does not want to be president, he will never run for president. Oh, and he would never win. He's an insanely smart dude, but he hasn't got the charisma to win presidency. (I do think that a lot of people on HN should run for some higher office in gov't, particularly tptacek and rayiner).
frostburg 9y ago
I wouldn't want to vote for them, but do you think that your actual politicians are qualified or deep thinkers? By "qualified" I don't mean "better than Trump", that's a very low bar.
rb2k_ 9y ago
> Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandiose and not good for society Arnold Schwarzenegger was the Governor of California. At least as far as the 'what makes him qualified' thing goes, apparently that's not a real concern for voters :)
- mc32 9y ago
  Let's not forget Grey Davis' being a politician didn't help California against rolling brownouts and massive deficits in the 2000s.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    Yeah, he was powerless against the Uber of its day: Enron. I'm not sure the fault there was Grey Davis's. Seems there was skulduggery afoot (it's actually a really interesting story, and seemingly a perennial one)
  - CalChris 9y ago
    > Let's not forget Grey Davis' being a politician didn't help California against rolling brownouts and massive deficits in the 2000s. The correct spelling is Gray Davis [1]. The rolling brownouts were caused by Enron [2] who was enabled by legislation (AB 1890) that his predecessor Pete Wilson signed in 1996 [3]. People went to jail for that. [4] There were no massive deficits under Davis. When the tech bubble burst in 2001, there was a revenue decline but that's about it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis [2] https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/enron/summary-findings.pdf https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/wec/enron... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
    - mc32 9y ago
      Arianna Huffington has a different take on the issue. Others do as well. Davis blames federal regulation while at the sane time has retrospectively apologized for being slow to act as the crisis began.
Clanan 9y ago
I think we see similar behavior with other famous/rich people; Hollywood stars are always involving themselves in politics (and are often surprised when their engagement means nothing). That being said, the point of campaigning for office is to demonstrate why you deserve the votes. Nothing wrong with a young successful guy giving it a try. Who knows - maybe the qualities that made him successful would translate well to governing. If anything, I think we should encourage more non-lawyers to run!
jsmith0295 9y ago
The rich white guys you mentioned in this comment are all Jewish, for what it's worth. Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist or a racist here, but trying to pin this on white privilege isn't entirely accurate.
- icelancer 9y ago
  When it suits the privilege narrative, Jewish people are white.
  - jsmith0295 9y ago
    What's odd to me is that this seems like it should be bad for Jews, and that they wouldn't want this to be the case, and that in general people wouldn't want a minority treated as the majority group in these cases... But instead I've been flagged.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Because, in general, those who like to point out that someone is Jewish are the alt-right. And they don't point that out because they love Mel Brooks movies and matzo balls.
    - icelancer 9y ago
      Eh, it is what it is. I am politically liberal, all for BLM/LGBT marches, equal rights, believe white privilege is a real thing, etc. Voted for Sanders. Still getting downvoted because the mere mention or skepticism of how privilege is applied attracts the usual attention. As far as I can tell, my Jewish friends are considered white when they are referred to regarding privilege (by the left) and a minority by the alt-right. They get the worst of both worlds. Asian-Americans get it on a similar, if lower level.
Kutta 9y ago
The society can't ever be honest and collectively stop enabling whatever. Everyone all the time responds to incentives, and power goes to whoever is lucky and good at collecting votes and support. Competence, technological acumen or vision is an extra. Altman being governor would be a high percentile outcome considering all of this.
HillaryBriss 9y ago
How does one measure, compare and conclude that California is the most developed economy in the world?
- Houshalter 9y ago
  GDP per capita probably. If California was a country, it would be on the top 10 list, only beat by some small oil rich countries.
- adventured 9y ago
  It doesn't make much sense. California doesn't have a super high median income or GDP per capita compared to other rich US states. The US has around a dozen states with median incomes equal to or higher than Switzerland. California ranks #8 in GDP per capita in the US among states. It's around $59,000 for 2017, which is high globally but not particularly high vs the overall US figure of ~$57,000. California ranks near the bottom in education and is 35th in poverty rate. The title of most developed US state goes to Massachusetts most likely. It has a super high GDP per capita and median income, and is generally highly developed in most regards including education, poverty, and median standard of living. The problem is, it's the size of a Scandinavian nation. New Hampshire is even worse: they have one of the world's highest median incomes and GDP per capita figures, but only 1.3 million people.
jsf666 9y ago
Most of them aren't "white" but jewish
wils1245 9y ago
I welcome it. I'd much rather have a crowded field than what we had in the last election on the Democratic side - a field emptied by the presence of a dominant presumptive nominee. More competition is a good thing.
- slg 9y ago
  More competition is also how we got Trump on the republican side because the number of candidates lowered the bar for receiving a plurality of the votes. Trump never would have beaten someone like Cruz, Rubio, or even Jeb in a primary straight up.
  - jeffbax 9y ago
    Maybe, but even at the end when it was Trump vs. Cruz vs. Kasich Trump polled well ahead. I don't think that quantity really was the determining factor -- I think Trump is just the natural end state for the way America seems to be at the moment with its massive political division and the inability for either side to treat the other with good intentions. Really agree with this post https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down-and-what-to-do-about-it-2dc27d1cf5f5 https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-world-turned-upside-down...
    - slg 9y ago
      People like voting for winners and it was clear that Trump was going to win the plurality of the vote by that point. It also came at the end of a long and grueling primary that served to normalize Trump and rally establishment republican behind him. There is no way he would have won against a generic republican if the race started with only two candidates.
  - autokad 9y ago
    I dont agree at all, and I do not think the data backs it up. Jeb is a clear loss mono e mono against trump in the primary, no question. the candidates you mentioned only did well in limited/specific geographies (such as their home state). i followed the primaries on both sides, and had you consolidated the votes to trump vs other, trump would have won. its also very unlikely that 'other' would all vote for 'other' if they weren't specifically allowed to vote for someone like Cruz.
jshelly 9y ago
I'll be honest I had no idea who Sam Altman is so I read his wikipedia page and I still don't quite understand how he got to where he is today? Was his success started by the Loopt sale?
- pen2l 9y ago
  He's a very smart guy, according to a lot of people, and he's also nice. He made an app that was reasonably successful, sold it. When in YC, pg recognized his genius... and over time decided he's the guy who should run YC.
- rurbrbdubebe 9y ago
  He got to where he is today because Paul Graham took him under his wing and made him his de facto son. It's not really a replicable model.
11thEarlOfMar 9y ago
Did you delete that post yourself?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Yes, there's no funny business going on.
  - granfalloon 9y ago
    Sorry, didn't mean to drag you back into the discussion! I posted my question because I was concerned that maybe a moderator deleted it. I guess I was being a little paranoid!
Houshalter 9y ago
Why should all of our leaders be charismatic lawyers? How are they more qualified? Or in some cases, famous actors. The current president's main qualification was inheriting a ton of money and being good at getting in the news. The bar is not terribly high and I think successful tech leaders are probably more qualified than anyone else that shows up. I think the idea of having representatives and leaders is a bit old fashioned to begin with. But if we are going to have them, they should be the most competent intelligent people we can find from outside of politics.