4 ms·

Facebook Billionaire Explains Why He Backs Prop 19

59 points by edw519 16y ago

dirtyaura 16y ago
Off-topic, but I went to see what does this billionaire do nowadays: http://www.asana.com http://www.asana.com Sounds interesting, but what's wrong with their web pages? Both Chrome and Safari seem to cut the bottom part of the text. There seems to be Javascript snippet to resize the blog but it ain't working. And they use iframe for blog content, why? Maybe they are developing some new technology and used it to implement their own blog. Seems that tech ain't production ready yet, There's even a comment: I assure you, we typically write nicer code than this. This is git-it-done hacktown. -jr
- icco 16y ago
  That is weird. I'm also creeped out by any company that has as many 'advisors' as they do employees (10 emp, 13 advisors). But then again, maybe that is how these companies work...
  - mlinsey 16y ago
    Those are angel investors as well as advisors.
- adoyle 16y ago
  Sounds like Chandler. http://chandlerproject.org/vision http://chandlerproject.org/vision Maybe one of these days someone will succeed in this space. It would be nice.
jacquesm 16y ago
So, is his opinion more relevant for having that much stock in facebook? I'm all for a more realistic stance on drug (ab)use, the United States has way too many people serving prison sentences on grounds that in most other jurisdictions would merely get you a slap on the wrist. So even if I agree with the ideas behind proposition 19 (and I think it doesn't go far enough, why should there be an age limit, smoking has no age limit, neither does drinking, but selling cigarettes and booze to minors is an offense in many places) I don't see what his (theoretical) riches have to do with it, other than that he can spend some money on causes that he sees as worthy. Personally I think that wealthy people sponsoring political causes is a terrible way to run a country, sometimes that will lead to things good for everybody, but most of the times I would expect such wealthy backers to support legislation that benefits them or their corporations. As for Mokovitz having that much money, he doesn't, he's got a bunch of Facebook stock, and that's not exactly the same as having money in the bank. Of course that goes for many people on the Forbes 400, but I'm thinking that $70,000 may not be as much of a pittance as you might expect based on the numbers thrown around there, I don't think he won't be able to go shopping on Monday but I also don't think it is below the radar for him.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- il 16y ago
  He's probably sold a bunch of that stock on the second market. FYI, drinking absolutely has an age limit! In fact, in some states, the ticket for underage drinking is more than for possession of weed.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That's only 15 states, in the rest of them underage drinking in a private setting is either explicitly allowed or not on the books (so in a gray area). I got that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age Which may of course be out of date.
    - Cushman 16y ago
      Absolutely true. It's a common misconception that the drinking age in the US is 21; federal law mandates that states outlaw the sale of alcohol to those under 21, but states have varying laws regarding the consumption of alcohol by minors.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      You're portraying this wrong. Only 19 do not restrict underage drinking at all. 15 ban it in all cases and the rest have certain exceptions for location and family members. The majority ban underage drinking in most cases, not allow it.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        > (how to lie with statistics) Right, I'll just leave it at that.
        Locke1689 16y ago
        Yeah I deleted that immediately after posting because I thought it was too hyperbolic (despite being a great book).
extension 16y ago
Why do so many folks use "overcrowding" as a rationale for keeping innocent people out of prison? Is that really the best reason you can come up with? If there was room for them, would it be fine? Would you legalize legitimate crimes because jail was full?
- grandalf 16y ago
  Of all the rationales, that's a poor one. How about: - Forcing it onto the black market makes producing marijuana the most profitable use of lots of land that would otherwise be used for non-crime related agriculture. - Locks up lots of people for non-violent offenses, ruining lives. - Deprives the state of Billions of dollars in tax revenue - Wastes billions on the nearly impossible task of enforcement - Leads to US military intervention all over central and south america, which leads to puppet regimes, corruption, and tremendous amounts of human suffering. - Marijuana proceeds fuel the expansion of criminal orgs that also practice human trafficking and import harder drugs. Legalization will destroy many of these organizations. - Promotes the emphasis on alcohol as the recreational drug of choice in America, when in fact Marijuana generally has fewer adverse side effects.
  - extension 16y ago
    The only reason that ultimately matters is that poking smot is not wrong, and putting innocent people in jail is. All that other stuff is incidental. If it helps the cause, then use it, but I think most of it just confuses the issue, and opens it up to more fallacious counter-arguments. If we argue that certain unethical things should be stopped because they are impractical, then what do we say about the ones that are practical?
    - grandalf 16y ago
      Such as?
      - extension 16y ago
        You want reasons it might be practical to imprison innocent people? Homelessness, insanity, youth, unpopular opinions, unpopular religion, guilty friends or relatives, wrong place at the wrong time, looking suspicious, bad taste, ugly, body odor, to name a few.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

59 points by edw519 16y ago

Off-topic, but I went to see what does this billionaire do nowadays: http://www.asana.com http://www.asana.com Sounds interesting, but what's wrong with their web pages? Both Chrome and Safari seem to cut the bottom part of the text. There seems to be Javascript snippet to resize the blog but it ain't working. And they use iframe for blog content, why? Maybe they are developing some new technology and used it to implement their own blog. Seems that tech ain't production ready yet, There's even a comment: I assure you, we typically write nicer code than this. This is git-it-done hacktown. -jr

icco 16y ago
That is weird. I'm also creeped out by any company that has as many 'advisors' as they do employees (10 emp, 13 advisors). But then again, maybe that is how these companies work...
- mlinsey 16y ago
  Those are angel investors as well as advisors.
adoyle 16y ago
Sounds like Chandler. http://chandlerproject.org/vision http://chandlerproject.org/vision Maybe one of these days someone will succeed in this space. It would be nice.

jacquesm 16y ago

So, is his opinion more relevant for having that much stock in facebook? I'm all for a more realistic stance on drug (ab)use, the United States has way too many people serving prison sentences on grounds that in most other jurisdictions would merely get you a slap on the wrist. So even if I agree with the ideas behind proposition 19 (and I think it doesn't go far enough, why should there be an age limit, smoking has no age limit, neither does drinking, but selling cigarettes and booze to minors is an offense in many places) I don't see what his (theoretical) riches have to do with it, other than that he can spend some money on causes that he sees as worthy. Personally I think that wealthy people sponsoring political causes is a terrible way to run a country, sometimes that will lead to things good for everybody, but most of the times I would expect such wealthy backers to support legislation that benefits them or their corporations. As for Mokovitz having that much money, he doesn't, he's got a bunch of Facebook stock, and that's not exactly the same as having money in the bank. Of course that goes for many people on the Forbes 400, but I'm thinking that $70,000 may not be as much of a pittance as you might expect based on the numbers thrown around there, I don't think he won't be able to go shopping on Monday but I also don't think it is below the radar for him.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
il 16y ago
He's probably sold a bunch of that stock on the second market. FYI, drinking absolutely has an age limit! In fact, in some states, the ticket for underage drinking is more than for possession of weed.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  That's only 15 states, in the rest of them underage drinking in a private setting is either explicitly allowed or not on the books (so in a gray area). I got that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age Which may of course be out of date.
  - Cushman 16y ago
    Absolutely true. It's a common misconception that the drinking age in the US is 21; federal law mandates that states outlaw the sale of alcohol to those under 21, but states have varying laws regarding the consumption of alcohol by minors.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    You're portraying this wrong. Only 19 do not restrict underage drinking at all. 15 ban it in all cases and the rest have certain exceptions for location and family members. The majority ban underage drinking in most cases, not allow it.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > (how to lie with statistics) Right, I'll just leave it at that.
      - Locke1689 16y ago
        Yeah I deleted that immediately after posting because I thought it was too hyperbolic (despite being a great book).

extension 16y ago

Why do so many folks use "overcrowding" as a rationale for keeping innocent people out of prison? Is that really the best reason you can come up with? If there was room for them, would it be fine? Would you legalize legitimate crimes because jail was full?

grandalf 16y ago
Of all the rationales, that's a poor one. How about: - Forcing it onto the black market makes producing marijuana the most profitable use of lots of land that would otherwise be used for non-crime related agriculture. - Locks up lots of people for non-violent offenses, ruining lives. - Deprives the state of Billions of dollars in tax revenue - Wastes billions on the nearly impossible task of enforcement - Leads to US military intervention all over central and south america, which leads to puppet regimes, corruption, and tremendous amounts of human suffering. - Marijuana proceeds fuel the expansion of criminal orgs that also practice human trafficking and import harder drugs. Legalization will destroy many of these organizations. - Promotes the emphasis on alcohol as the recreational drug of choice in America, when in fact Marijuana generally has fewer adverse side effects.
- extension 16y ago
  The only reason that ultimately matters is that poking smot is not wrong, and putting innocent people in jail is. All that other stuff is incidental. If it helps the cause, then use it, but I think most of it just confuses the issue, and opens it up to more fallacious counter-arguments. If we argue that certain unethical things should be stopped because they are impractical, then what do we say about the ones that are practical?
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Such as?
    - extension 16y ago
      You want reasons it might be practical to imprison innocent people? Homelessness, insanity, youth, unpopular opinions, unpopular religion, guilty friends or relatives, wrong place at the wrong time, looking suspicious, bad taste, ugly, body odor, to name a few.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]