4 ms·
OP said there was one too many non-Black Zuckerbergs, which I took to mean the one we have was one too many, that is, they may prefer he were Black instead? I d
by aspenmayer 6y ago
OP said there was one too many non-Black Zuckerbergs, which I took to mean the one we have was one too many, that is, they may prefer he were Black instead? I don’t know what they meant, I just steelmanned it. I agree that bias exists, and it would be better if it didn’t at all in any way, but markets price in bias as well as risk and other factors, likely racism too, unfortunately. Predicting investments of others via their sentiment toward individuals and other groups is an idea I just had, and I don’t even trade or own stocks. This seems elementary to me.
It will matter to Zuckerberg personally because he doesn’t seem to rate well with some people, which isn’t necessary, but helps you get elected, generally. He seems to really care what people think about him in a value-neutral “we’re all just talking” kind of way, which actually isn’t a bad approach, but I want to see how he does live on stage with professional debaters. That’s essentially what Congress is these days: modern sedate mortal combat for American lives in our Colosseum, battles put on for the rich and famous while everyone else watches and cheers, watches and jeers, or scalps entry coins out front.
https://depts.washington.edu/chidint/journal/2015/03/glory-horror-roman-colosseum/ https://depts.washington.edu/chidint/journal/2015/03/glory-h...
- bigiain 6y ago> OP said there was one too many non-Black Zuckerbergs, which I took to mean the one we have was one too many, that is, they may prefer he were Black instead? Poorly communicated on my part then. I was alluding to "one too many Zuckerbergs" - in my opinion _any_ Zuckerberg (in terms of a single individual being totally in charge of something like FB) is one too many.