6 ms·

The book “Palo Alto” by Malcolm Harris does underwrite a lot of the terse remarks made in this blog post. I think that book should be “mandatory reading” for t

The book “Palo Alto” by Malcolm Harris does underwrite a lot of the terse remarks made in this blog post. I think that book should be “mandatory reading” for the HN crowd. In particular, I found the history on Stanford university quite enlightening.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> “Palo Alto” by Malcolm Harris does underwrite a lot of the terse remarks made in this blog post The research is great. But the tone is grating and often self congratulatory, with heavy doses of sins of thy father interspersed. Large sections of the book had me simultaneously intrigued while asking myself "tell me you were at Occupy Wall Street without telling me you were at Occupy Wall Street." It's a good book for people likely to agree with the author's worldview. But it's not written to change minds nor even engage in serious debate. (I do recommend it for anyone who finds the culture and history of Silicon Valley interesting.)
- jzb 3y ago
  Thanks for this comment. I might check the book out anyway, but I struggle with (some) books that are in this vein. For example, I probably agree with Dawkins on most of his positions in "The God Delusion" but I found the tone so off-putting I didn't finish it. It's been quite some time, but I just recall feeling it went overboard to being mean-spirited and (ironically) preaching to the choir rather than being something that might persuade anyone.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  David Graeber does appear in the word cloud (I guess some sites still use these?) on this site. So, the comparison to that book is legit.
- louwrentius 3y ago
  The historical context is what really matters and why this book is so interesting to me. Tone-policing the book isn’t really valid criticism to me.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Not pushing back on the book per se, just it meeting the required-reading bar. Someone else will need to refine it to meet that threshold. For most people in Silicon Valley, particularly decision makers, the relevant Wikipedia articles are a better use of time.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> “Palo Alto” by Malcolm Harris does underwrite a lot of the terse remarks made in this blog post The research is great. But the tone is grating and often self congratulatory, with heavy doses of sins of thy father interspersed. Large sections of the book had me simultaneously intrigued while asking myself "tell me you were at Occupy Wall Street without telling me you were at Occupy Wall Street." It's a good book for people likely to agree with the author's worldview. But it's not written to change minds nor even engage in serious debate. (I do recommend it for anyone who finds the culture and history of Silicon Valley interesting.)

jzb 3y ago
Thanks for this comment. I might check the book out anyway, but I struggle with (some) books that are in this vein. For example, I probably agree with Dawkins on most of his positions in "The God Delusion" but I found the tone so off-putting I didn't finish it. It's been quite some time, but I just recall feeling it went overboard to being mean-spirited and (ironically) preaching to the choir rather than being something that might persuade anyone.
brodouevencode 3y ago
David Graeber does appear in the word cloud (I guess some sites still use these?) on this site. So, the comparison to that book is legit.
louwrentius 3y ago
The historical context is what really matters and why this book is so interesting to me. Tone-policing the book isn’t really valid criticism to me.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Not pushing back on the book per se, just it meeting the required-reading bar. Someone else will need to refine it to meet that threshold. For most people in Silicon Valley, particularly decision makers, the relevant Wikipedia articles are a better use of time.