3 ms·

Dupe of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27724699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27724699

geofft 5y ago
Both are posted by relatively new accounts (green usernames). This one's most recent comment is shallow complaining about diversity/equity/enclusion. The previous one is named "FreeSpeech" and linked in the comments to a post about Soros. People are pushing an agenda on you. Sam Altman himself has now started saying that if the facts don't match his feelings, we need to look harder until we find facts that do: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1410251675395264517 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1410251675395264517 I remember a time when hackers - real hackers - valued truth, wherever it took them. But a funny thing about the truth is that it doesn't tend to suit the rich.
- dang 5y ago
  I looked, and found no evidence at all that those two accounts are related. Be careful not to read too much into specific data points. Randomness plus cognitive bias equals narrative—and making a big rhetorical narrative about it is almost certainly a bad idea.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  1) Who cares what Sam Altman says? By SV standards, he's not successful. 2) What Jeff Bezos meant was that people often measure the wrong thing. He wasn't saying facts are bad, he's saying their interpretation can be, so look for the underlying truth. That's different than valuing feelings over facts, which is what you're referring to. Which is what our current post-fact society looks like, especially the gynocracy. (An example of the above is that I worked at a place where the monthly availability reports always said 99.99% uptime, yet when you sshed into a random server at any time, the app server was down, and customers said they couldn't log in. We never explained why the metrics were inaccurate, but we went through and fixed 200 servers and at the end the reports matched the customer experience (reduction in support calls) - 99.99%.)

Both are posted by relatively new accounts (green usernames). This one's most recent comment is shallow complaining about diversity/equity/enclusion. The previous one is named "FreeSpeech" and linked in the comments to a post about Soros. People are pushing an agenda on you. Sam Altman himself has now started saying that if the facts don't match his feelings, we need to look harder until we find facts that do: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1410251675395264517 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1410251675395264517 I remember a time when hackers - real hackers - valued truth, wherever it took them. But a funny thing about the truth is that it doesn't tend to suit the rich.

dang 5y ago
I looked, and found no evidence at all that those two accounts are related. Be careful not to read too much into specific data points. Randomness plus cognitive bias equals narrative—and making a big rhetorical narrative about it is almost certainly a bad idea.
redis_mlc 5y ago
1) Who cares what Sam Altman says? By SV standards, he's not successful. 2) What Jeff Bezos meant was that people often measure the wrong thing. He wasn't saying facts are bad, he's saying their interpretation can be, so look for the underlying truth. That's different than valuing feelings over facts, which is what you're referring to. Which is what our current post-fact society looks like, especially the gynocracy. (An example of the above is that I worked at a place where the monthly availability reports always said 99.99% uptime, yet when you sshed into a random server at any time, the app server was down, and customers said they couldn't log in. We never explained why the metrics were inaccurate, but we went through and fixed 200 servers and at the end the reports matched the customer experience (reduction in support calls) - 99.99%.)