3 ms·

I can absolutely confirm a lot of people in SV are on drugs. It’s unfair because if you’re not on them, your output can be lower than others and suddenly you’re

I can absolutely confirm a lot of people in SV are on drugs. It’s unfair because if you’re not on them, your output can be lower than others and suddenly you’re the problem. You get put on performance plans, go through extreme stress of losing your employment and a means to feed your family. Companies turn a blind eye because they benefit from it. It’s a shame. Sad that SV became what the Wall Street in some sense. Edit: This was purely in the context of amphetamines (and other stimulants), not psychedelics. There are long term consequences like many pointed out, but that is exactly why I refuse to participate. I’ve mentored so many young engineers who seem to be getting pulled in with the promise of career growth based on performance and it just breaks my heart.

operatingthetan 3y ago
There is a big health cost. Not sleeping causes premature aging. Stimulants also have negative cardiovascular impacts, can cause psychosis, seem to affect the personality long term, and a lot more.
- htss2013 3y ago
  It's not that simple. You have to look at net cost and benefit. There are plenty of stimulant free paths in life that also cause cardiovascular damage, lack of sleep and 50 other problems. The issue with living in a society where money so closely correlates with health is that anything bad for your money tends to also be bad for health.
  - operatingthetan 3y ago
    >There are plenty of stimulant free paths in life that also cause cardiovascular damage, lack of sleep and 50 other problems. You're pretty close to whataboutism here... I suppose we could all shrug and go "everything does everything" and get lost in over-generalization, but that doesn't lead to any sort of productive conversational outcome.
    - htss2013 3y ago
      It's not whataboutism to point out that in the USA, the default mode of life is bad for your health. I dont mean that in the "everything causes cancer" big unknown sense. I mean that in quantifiable sense that allows you to weigh net benefits. Eg, prolonged stress is bad for your cardiovascular system and lowers life expectancy by quantifiable amounts. Lack of money causes prolonged stress. So if a stimulant is what allows you to be productive enough to have ample money, you're arguably better off, because of that and the multitude of other health benefits from having money.
freedomben 3y ago
You're not wrong, but you're probably getting downvoted (not by me) because TFA seems to be about psychedlics rather than traditional performance enhancers.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I downvoted because I think the premise is pretty absurd. Yes, some people in SV tech companies take drugs. To say "well I got put on a performance plan and lost my job and now I can't feed my family because I wasn't taking amphetamines" honestly just made me giggle.
slt2021 3y ago
people who are on drugs are not better than regular, after every trip there is payoff. if you dont believe me, try these drugs yourself and find out for yourself. there is no free lunch, health consequences are severe with frequent use of drugs even in small doses
renewiltord 3y ago
I know lots of straight-edge people who are very successful in Silicon Valley. In fact, of all the people I know, almost every psychedelic user is for recreation, a small number is for therapy, and zero are for productivity. My friend group has a few prescription amphetamine users, but if you're not an L6 in the valley, it's not drugs because I know many L6s and above and zero of the L6s use. Well, except caffeine which is an acceptable stimulant drug. And alcohol for recreation.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  The point that I am trying to make is not that you can’t have a successful career without drugs, but rather the expectations are much higher across the board because the baseline is set based on performance while on drugs. Plenty of L6s use. Plenty of people in management also use. Am I am strictly talking about amphetamines (and other stimulants), not psychedelics. Unfortunately I’m past the point of joining in and am content with not climbing the ladder, but it’s unfortunate that this culture is rampant. I’ve seen plenty of young engineers get pulled into it because of the pressure to perform and like many others said, there are long term consequences.

operatingthetan 3y ago

There is a big health cost. Not sleeping causes premature aging. Stimulants also have negative cardiovascular impacts, can cause psychosis, seem to affect the personality long term, and a lot more.

htss2013 3y ago
It's not that simple. You have to look at net cost and benefit. There are plenty of stimulant free paths in life that also cause cardiovascular damage, lack of sleep and 50 other problems. The issue with living in a society where money so closely correlates with health is that anything bad for your money tends to also be bad for health.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  >There are plenty of stimulant free paths in life that also cause cardiovascular damage, lack of sleep and 50 other problems. You're pretty close to whataboutism here... I suppose we could all shrug and go "everything does everything" and get lost in over-generalization, but that doesn't lead to any sort of productive conversational outcome.
  - htss2013 3y ago
    It's not whataboutism to point out that in the USA, the default mode of life is bad for your health. I dont mean that in the "everything causes cancer" big unknown sense. I mean that in quantifiable sense that allows you to weigh net benefits. Eg, prolonged stress is bad for your cardiovascular system and lowers life expectancy by quantifiable amounts. Lack of money causes prolonged stress. So if a stimulant is what allows you to be productive enough to have ample money, you're arguably better off, because of that and the multitude of other health benefits from having money.

freedomben 3y ago

You're not wrong, but you're probably getting downvoted (not by me) because TFA seems to be about psychedlics rather than traditional performance enhancers.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I downvoted because I think the premise is pretty absurd. Yes, some people in SV tech companies take drugs. To say "well I got put on a performance plan and lost my job and now I can't feed my family because I wasn't taking amphetamines" honestly just made me giggle.

slt2021 3y ago

people who are on drugs are not better than regular, after every trip there is payoff. if you dont believe me, try these drugs yourself and find out for yourself. there is no free lunch, health consequences are severe with frequent use of drugs even in small doses

renewiltord 3y ago

I know lots of straight-edge people who are very successful in Silicon Valley. In fact, of all the people I know, almost every psychedelic user is for recreation, a small number is for therapy, and zero are for productivity. My friend group has a few prescription amphetamine users, but if you're not an L6 in the valley, it's not drugs because I know many L6s and above and zero of the L6s use. Well, except caffeine which is an acceptable stimulant drug. And alcohol for recreation.

darth_avocado 3y ago
The point that I am trying to make is not that you can’t have a successful career without drugs, but rather the expectations are much higher across the board because the baseline is set based on performance while on drugs. Plenty of L6s use. Plenty of people in management also use. Am I am strictly talking about amphetamines (and other stimulants), not psychedelics. Unfortunately I’m past the point of joining in and am content with not climbing the ladder, but it’s unfortunate that this culture is rampant. I’ve seen plenty of young engineers get pulled into it because of the pressure to perform and like many others said, there are long term consequences.