3 ms·

Why is anything you just asserted any more valid than someone claiming that being a jerk is useful trait in becoming successful in business? Just because you us

by kolbe 8y ago

Why is anything you just asserted any more valid than someone claiming that being a jerk is useful trait in becoming successful in business? Just because you used 'orthogonal' in a fun context doesn't mean you've given evidence that your assertion is valid.

acjohnson55 8y ago
It might well be useful. You'll get challenged a lot less if people fear you and your power. But that doesn't mean it's necessary, or even that it's not counterproductive to greater success. Even in the post, Carmack alludes to a couple battle he lost with Steve where Carmack's view was eventually vindicated. By the way, you criticize the previous commenter's assertion, but you haven't provided any rationale on why they might be mistaken.
- ralmeida 8y ago
  Not OP, and even though I agree with them (that it _is_ orthogonal), I think the burden of proof should be with the original claimer, rather than the refuter needing to prove a negative.
  - hacker11235 8y ago
    Unfortunately comment sections usually don't work like that :(
  - acjohnson55 8y ago
    I kind of agree, but it's really just a discussion, which I feel has a lower bar than a formal debate. If the refuter thought the argument was weak, they could have simply responded with their point of view and some evidence, rather than complaining. It's not like the OP was making claims on hidden truths.
- kolbe 8y ago
  >By the way, you criticize the previous commenter's assertion, but you haven't provided any rationale on why they might be mistaken. Fine. John Rockefeller, Henry Clay Frick, Steve Cohen, Bill Gross, LBJ, Larry Ellison, Pablo Escobar, Donald Trump, Bo Xilai, Harvey Weinstein, Vladamir Putin. And those are just a small fraction of the HUGE assoles. Not even run of the mill assholes like Jobs. Recent history (and ancient history) is filled with successful assholes. So, my rationale that it's not something that can be asserted without evidence is simply the prevalence. Which, to be honest, probably didn't need to be said. This is common knowledge.

by kolbe 8y ago

acjohnson55 8y ago

It might well be useful. You'll get challenged a lot less if people fear you and your power. But that doesn't mean it's necessary, or even that it's not counterproductive to greater success. Even in the post, Carmack alludes to a couple battle he lost with Steve where Carmack's view was eventually vindicated. By the way, you criticize the previous commenter's assertion, but you haven't provided any rationale on why they might be mistaken.

ralmeida 8y ago
Not OP, and even though I agree with them (that it _is_ orthogonal), I think the burden of proof should be with the original claimer, rather than the refuter needing to prove a negative.
- hacker11235 8y ago
  Unfortunately comment sections usually don't work like that :(
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  I kind of agree, but it's really just a discussion, which I feel has a lower bar than a formal debate. If the refuter thought the argument was weak, they could have simply responded with their point of view and some evidence, rather than complaining. It's not like the OP was making claims on hidden truths.
kolbe 8y ago
>By the way, you criticize the previous commenter's assertion, but you haven't provided any rationale on why they might be mistaken. Fine. John Rockefeller, Henry Clay Frick, Steve Cohen, Bill Gross, LBJ, Larry Ellison, Pablo Escobar, Donald Trump, Bo Xilai, Harvey Weinstein, Vladamir Putin. And those are just a small fraction of the HUGE assoles. Not even run of the mill assholes like Jobs. Recent history (and ancient history) is filled with successful assholes. So, my rationale that it's not something that can be asserted without evidence is simply the prevalence. Which, to be honest, probably didn't need to be said. This is common knowledge.