as a Yale alum, I like to play the drinking game "take a shot every time a Yalie uses the word 'qua'" in all seriousness, decent take, but it doesn't seem to a

as a Yale alum, I like to play the drinking game "take a shot every time a Yalie uses the word 'qua'" in all seriousness, decent take, but it doesn't seem to add that much to Andreesen's essay. e.g. the whole bit about how building a new world is inherently political... yes, in a more philosophical sense. But when Andreesen writes "we need to separate the imperative to build these things from ideology and politics. Both sides need to contribute to building," he clearly is referring to America's dysfunctional political climate, not "living together" / some conception you'd be considering in political philosophy. fwiw, I do think Andreesen's essay could have more explicity (as Isaac's is) criticized out how creative/productive effort has been spent in recent times. I remember reading a quote about how crazy it is that the nation's (and globe's) top talent is being brought to Silicon Valley to, in large part, figure out how to more effectively addict young people to their apps (rather than, as it were, "build for good").