3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Same reason we ask Peter Thiel or Elon Musk their thoughts on AI or politic

by seppin 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Same reason we ask Peter Thiel or Elon Musk their thoughts on AI or politics.

mistermann 6y ago
I generally have a positive opinion of Cuban, but it's not via that approach. Generally speaking, I've just liked most of what I've seen of him, and disliked very little. Plus, he seems willing to challenge the status quo, which I weight fairly heavily.
nostromo 6y ago
Thiel and Musk have a track record of success though. Yes, they're lucky, but they also seem to be smart and capable. Cuban is a one-hit-wonder that sold a domain (and a dream) to Yahoo at the height of the dot com bubble. They don't seem particularly comparable. Edit: to respond to the comments below, no I'm not saying he's not successful, or that he's not smart. I'm only saying in tech and startup circles, he's no Thiel or Musk.
- holler 6y ago
  On what basis is he a one-hit-wonder? Just because his endeavors didn’t progress to building rockets or big data ML for the gov, and instead to building a winning NBA team and one of most successful ongoing reality “startup” tv shows, he is somehow less-than?
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I have no clue about the NBA, but yeah, I'd say being a part of a reality tv show isn't in the same league as building rockets to go to Mars. The Kardashians are in reality tv shows. They are not building rockets.
    - groby_b 6y ago
      Let's just be clear that the reason SpaceX builds great rockets is... not exactly rooted in Musk. He was too busy sleeping on the Tesla production floor. If you want to look for the leaders there, Gwynne Shotwell & Tom Mueller is who should be on your radar.
- aaron-lebo 6y ago
  Both of those guys have a track record of plowing more money into money, with their own failures. It's just sports, but winning a title isn't nothing, and if you've followed his sports career, he was big into advanced stats decently early and the Mavs are as good as anyone at finding diamonds in the rough. There's obviously Dirk and Doncic, but they were also really close on getting Giannis. That shows some kind of insight. Not to mention, small ball dominates the league today, but the Don Nelson Mavs were doing that in 2003. I know it is just sports, but sports are some of the most competitive domains in the world, with the ability to innovate, which he has done. I don't think HN's preference for tech should just ignore what he's accomplished. Don't forget, PG and YC are only what they are because Viaweb was purchased in the same wave as Broadcast. Neither of those companies matter today.
- seppin 6y ago
  > Thiel and Musk have a track record of success though. Yes, they're lucky, but they also seem to be smart and capable. Thinking someone has expertise in X therefore they are good source for analysis on Y is the logical fallacy I linked to above. Contrary to what silicon valley believes, there is no such thing as being "smart" in a general sense. You can be capable in certain things, maybe you are faster to learn in others. That doesn't mean any founder with a billion $ exit should be asked about public policy.
vikramkr 6y ago
Ai sure, but I personally put as much stock into either of their opinions as I do Cubans, which is, about as much stock I'd give to the opinion of any other reasonably smart person. Nothing special, because it's out of their domain of expertise. Nobody is an expert on "politics" in general. Some people are experts in running campaigns. Some people are experts in Keynesian economic theory. Some people are experts in healthcare. Some are experts in getting legislation passed and in understanding the machinations of power in Congress. Some are good executives able to hold together a broad set of options and make good calls. Nobody is an expert in all aspects of "politics"

by seppin 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Same reason we ask Peter Thiel or Elon Musk their thoughts on AI or politics.

mistermann 6y ago

I generally have a positive opinion of Cuban, but it's not via that approach. Generally speaking, I've just liked most of what I've seen of him, and disliked very little. Plus, he seems willing to challenge the status quo, which I weight fairly heavily.

nostromo 6y ago

Thiel and Musk have a track record of success though. Yes, they're lucky, but they also seem to be smart and capable. Cuban is a one-hit-wonder that sold a domain (and a dream) to Yahoo at the height of the dot com bubble. They don't seem particularly comparable. Edit: to respond to the comments below, no I'm not saying he's not successful, or that he's not smart. I'm only saying in tech and startup circles, he's no Thiel or Musk.

holler 6y ago
On what basis is he a one-hit-wonder? Just because his endeavors didn’t progress to building rockets or big data ML for the gov, and instead to building a winning NBA team and one of most successful ongoing reality “startup” tv shows, he is somehow less-than?
- luckylion 6y ago
  I have no clue about the NBA, but yeah, I'd say being a part of a reality tv show isn't in the same league as building rockets to go to Mars. The Kardashians are in reality tv shows. They are not building rockets.
  - groby_b 6y ago
    Let's just be clear that the reason SpaceX builds great rockets is... not exactly rooted in Musk. He was too busy sleeping on the Tesla production floor. If you want to look for the leaders there, Gwynne Shotwell & Tom Mueller is who should be on your radar.
aaron-lebo 6y ago
Both of those guys have a track record of plowing more money into money, with their own failures. It's just sports, but winning a title isn't nothing, and if you've followed his sports career, he was big into advanced stats decently early and the Mavs are as good as anyone at finding diamonds in the rough. There's obviously Dirk and Doncic, but they were also really close on getting Giannis. That shows some kind of insight. Not to mention, small ball dominates the league today, but the Don Nelson Mavs were doing that in 2003. I know it is just sports, but sports are some of the most competitive domains in the world, with the ability to innovate, which he has done. I don't think HN's preference for tech should just ignore what he's accomplished. Don't forget, PG and YC are only what they are because Viaweb was purchased in the same wave as Broadcast. Neither of those companies matter today.
seppin 6y ago
> Thiel and Musk have a track record of success though. Yes, they're lucky, but they also seem to be smart and capable. Thinking someone has expertise in X therefore they are good source for analysis on Y is the logical fallacy I linked to above. Contrary to what silicon valley believes, there is no such thing as being "smart" in a general sense. You can be capable in certain things, maybe you are faster to learn in others. That doesn't mean any founder with a billion $ exit should be asked about public policy.

vikramkr 6y ago

Ai sure, but I personally put as much stock into either of their opinions as I do Cubans, which is, about as much stock I'd give to the opinion of any other reasonably smart person. Nothing special, because it's out of their domain of expertise. Nobody is an expert on "politics" in general. Some people are experts in running campaigns. Some people are experts in Keynesian economic theory. Some people are experts in healthcare. Some are experts in getting legislation passed and in understanding the machinations of power in Congress. Some are good executives able to hold together a broad set of options and make good calls. Nobody is an expert in all aspects of "politics"