4 ms·

That article reeks of bitterness, hatred, and wealth envy. Really, it's not worth reading. The content is irrelevant, it's an incoherent rant against rich nerds

That article reeks of bitterness, hatred, and wealth envy. Really, it's not worth reading. The content is irrelevant, it's an incoherent rant against rich nerds.

watwut 8y ago
What exactly makes Zuckerberg nerd? It is just my pet peeve. Businessman with ability to do people things and being good in business being considered nerds for no real reason.
- watwut 8y ago
  This is getting downvoted, but seriously. The man build large company which definitely suggests strong business and social/political skill. You can talk about priviledge and yes he has some. Nevertheless, even equally or more advantageous people fail at growing companies, so it is absolutely achievement and proof of political and busines skill. Nothing whatsoever to suggest anything nerdy through, unless everyone who ever touched tech counts as nerd.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mberning 8y ago
Agree completely. They mention that they were "arbitrarily chosen" and list luck, timing, etc. The fact of the matter is that it isn't arbitrary at all and hard work, talent, risk taking, etc. are all very strong filters. Sure, there is always some element of luck and timing, but give me a break. They make it sound as if building facebook is only slightly more difficult than finding $5 on the ground. This was clearly written by somebody who has no idea how tech startups succeed and more often than not fail. Also, why take a shot at the fact that they are mostly men? Completely gratuitous and betrays their ideologically rigid way of looking at things.
- bachbach 8y ago
  That many competitors did exist - Bebo, Orkut, MySpace goes against the luck/timing story. I think what Mark Zuckerberg hit on is that people like to belong to an exclusive club - so Facebook started out behaving like a night club to give the platform a feeling (now forgotten) of sophistication.
dmreedy 8y ago
It seems to have a pretty coherent thesis to me. "They started with some good ideas, some luck, great timing, got lots of people to believe in their rosy vision, and they won the unicorn lottery. Little did they know or care what problems they were creating. And now, they’re being asked to solve — or acknowledge, or something — some really big issues" I'd go so far as to say that it doesn't offer any solutions because, as it alludes to, there really aren't any. At least no top-down ones. That's the scope and scale of the problems created. They're some of the oldest kinds of problems, ones we've been trying to tackle more or less since organized society began. Exacerbated and accelerated by devices that allow us to make mistakes faster than any other point in history. I think these systems deserve a bit of bitterness and hatred. I'm really not sure where you're getting 'wealth envy' from. This is the same lament that occurs with any kind of dramatic power imbalance. When the wealthy and powerful become so powerful that they stop being private entities and start being society-altering juggernauts, the rest of the people will complain about being trampled. This seems fair and right to me.
smhost 8y ago
This thread is very defensive. Being angry at the hubris of zuckerberg and other tech bros is completely appropriate and justified. When rich nerds try to solve large complex problems from within the algorithmic confines of their solipsism, they inevitably run into the endless irregularities of the real world until the only option they have left is to destroy every irrelgularity with force or implode because they can't.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  Referring to any successful male technologist as "tech bros" is just condescending on the face of it and really weakens your argument. People (rightfully) don't go around referring to Sheryl Sandberg and Meg Whitman as "tech broads".
  - smhost 8y ago
    from what i read, facebook was literally a frat house until they brought in a grown up to clean up their graffiti and beer cans, so i think the term is appropriate here.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- threatofrain 8y ago
  Is Mark Zuckerburg a rich nerd? Is that a good summary of him? Does that imply that if you've experienced nerds, then you can glean insight into Mark's head? If we understand nerds, can we understand Mark Zuckerburg? Or Bill Gates? I feel so dubious at this label which is meant to provide psychological insight into a person.
happytoexplain 8y ago
Dismissing criticism of the wealthy as "envy" has disturbing elements in common with dismissing criticism of politicians - i.e. both groups have a kind of power over the public that means they deserve and can withstand hard critique (an attitude I consider to be one of the best parts of whatever can be called American culture). Therefore, I think we should allow a little more leeway when considering what might look at first glance like just anger, or just a rant. *Edited to accurately quote your comment

That article reeks of bitterness, hatred, and wealth envy. Really, it's not worth reading. The content is irrelevant, it's an incoherent rant against rich nerds.

watwut 8y ago

What exactly makes Zuckerberg nerd? It is just my pet peeve. Businessman with ability to do people things and being good in business being considered nerds for no real reason.

watwut 8y ago
This is getting downvoted, but seriously. The man build large company which definitely suggests strong business and social/political skill. You can talk about priviledge and yes he has some. Nevertheless, even equally or more advantageous people fail at growing companies, so it is absolutely achievement and proof of political and busines skill. Nothing whatsoever to suggest anything nerdy through, unless everyone who ever touched tech counts as nerd.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mberning 8y ago

Agree completely. They mention that they were "arbitrarily chosen" and list luck, timing, etc. The fact of the matter is that it isn't arbitrary at all and hard work, talent, risk taking, etc. are all very strong filters. Sure, there is always some element of luck and timing, but give me a break. They make it sound as if building facebook is only slightly more difficult than finding $5 on the ground. This was clearly written by somebody who has no idea how tech startups succeed and more often than not fail. Also, why take a shot at the fact that they are mostly men? Completely gratuitous and betrays their ideologically rigid way of looking at things.

bachbach 8y ago
That many competitors did exist - Bebo, Orkut, MySpace goes against the luck/timing story. I think what Mark Zuckerberg hit on is that people like to belong to an exclusive club - so Facebook started out behaving like a night club to give the platform a feeling (now forgotten) of sophistication.

dmreedy 8y ago

It seems to have a pretty coherent thesis to me. "They started with some good ideas, some luck, great timing, got lots of people to believe in their rosy vision, and they won the unicorn lottery. Little did they know or care what problems they were creating. And now, they’re being asked to solve — or acknowledge, or something — some really big issues" I'd go so far as to say that it doesn't offer any solutions because, as it alludes to, there really aren't any. At least no top-down ones. That's the scope and scale of the problems created. They're some of the oldest kinds of problems, ones we've been trying to tackle more or less since organized society began. Exacerbated and accelerated by devices that allow us to make mistakes faster than any other point in history. I think these systems deserve a bit of bitterness and hatred. I'm really not sure where you're getting 'wealth envy' from. This is the same lament that occurs with any kind of dramatic power imbalance. When the wealthy and powerful become so powerful that they stop being private entities and start being society-altering juggernauts, the rest of the people will complain about being trampled. This seems fair and right to me.

smhost 8y ago

This thread is very defensive. Being angry at the hubris of zuckerberg and other tech bros is completely appropriate and justified. When rich nerds try to solve large complex problems from within the algorithmic confines of their solipsism, they inevitably run into the endless irregularities of the real world until the only option they have left is to destroy every irrelgularity with force or implode because they can't.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Referring to any successful male technologist as "tech bros" is just condescending on the face of it and really weakens your argument. People (rightfully) don't go around referring to Sheryl Sandberg and Meg Whitman as "tech broads".
- smhost 8y ago
  from what i read, facebook was literally a frat house until they brought in a grown up to clean up their graffiti and beer cans, so i think the term is appropriate here.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
threatofrain 8y ago
Is Mark Zuckerburg a rich nerd? Is that a good summary of him? Does that imply that if you've experienced nerds, then you can glean insight into Mark's head? If we understand nerds, can we understand Mark Zuckerburg? Or Bill Gates? I feel so dubious at this label which is meant to provide psychological insight into a person.

happytoexplain 8y ago

Dismissing criticism of the wealthy as "envy" has disturbing elements in common with dismissing criticism of politicians - i.e. both groups have a kind of power over the public that means they deserve and can withstand hard critique (an attitude I consider to be one of the best parts of whatever can be called American culture). Therefore, I think we should allow a little more leeway when considering what might look at first glance like just anger, or just a rant. *Edited to accurately quote your comment