4 ms·

Not according to Marc Andreessen & Ben Horowitz [1], Chamath Palihapitiya & David Sacks [2], possibly Zuckerberg [3], and others. And of course Elon, Thiel. Ma

Not according to Marc Andreessen & Ben Horowitz [1], Chamath Palihapitiya & David Sacks [2], possibly Zuckerberg [3], and others. And of course Elon, Thiel. Many such cases. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blqIZGXWUpU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blqIZGXWUpU [3] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XgWFwVRGcf4 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XgWFwVRGcf4

nirav72 2y ago
SEC and other watchdog agencies will most likely be gutted to give rise to Crypto.
woodruffw 2y ago
These videos would fit very nicely into an undergraduate course segment on motivated reasoning. As viewers, it's incumbent upon us to determine whether the Musks and the Thiels of the world have our best interests in mind and, if not, whether their support for any particular candidate might reflect that.
- justinhj 2y ago
  As Trump said in his recent speech in Michigan "We have to make life good for our smart people." These are executives and investors who have created trillions in value with their technology based products and services. Their interests align with mine.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    You're entitled to believe that. But you might want to consider whether this is (1) uniformly true for HN's readership demographic, and (2) uniformly true for the American electorate.
    - cdrini 2y ago
      Hmm why should they consider those things? They stated their opinion and priorities, which will likely influence their voting decision. The views of HN or the American electorate play no role in the statement of that individual's priorities, no?
      - woodruffw 2y ago
        I think the simplest answer here is “almost everyone’s revealed preference is for living in a deliberative democracy, not a demagogic one.” In other words: GP probably wants, in an ordinary setting, to have their views understood (why bother responding at all if not?). In which case they should similarly set aside some space for understanding why others don’t share them.
        lilsoso 2y ago
        Why am I being voted down for pointing out, validly, that many people disagree? Why the rush to censor?
        cdrini 2y ago
        Downvoting isn't really a mechanism to censor, flagging is. The intent of downvoting is usually just disagreement. My guess would be you're being downvoted for a few reasons: - A few of the people you mentioned are somewhat polarising, so folks who dislike them, might downvote - in a measure of a president's efficacy, mentioning people who think a president is ineffective isn't as convincing as say mentioning actions of the president that were ineffective. You will, for any president, be able to find a large number of people who will passionately argue for/against that president's effectiveness. - Your sources are very long videos, which discourage verifying if folks want to see what they said about him. Eg "Here's why he's in effective: [3 hours of podcasts]" - One of your sources is a podcast which features Trump himself, which greatly brings into doubt the objectivism of the video - the Zuckerberg short is very speculative, further weakening this collection of sources
        lilsoso 2y ago
    - justinhj 2y ago
      I gave my opinion. The 1) and 2) I don’t speak for or care to be told to fall in line for.
wetmore 2y ago
Condemnation from a lot of those names is a strong positive signal imo.
rsynnott 2y ago
Ah, yes, just the people I ask for a sensible objective view on the world. Like “well, this collection of the weirdest Silicon Valley people available took some time out of their busy schedule of hawking bitcoin or metaverses or magic robots or whatever to give a Very Important Opinion” is _not_ the world’s strongest argument.

nirav72 2y ago

SEC and other watchdog agencies will most likely be gutted to give rise to Crypto.

woodruffw 2y ago

These videos would fit very nicely into an undergraduate course segment on motivated reasoning. As viewers, it's incumbent upon us to determine whether the Musks and the Thiels of the world have our best interests in mind and, if not, whether their support for any particular candidate might reflect that.

justinhj 2y ago
As Trump said in his recent speech in Michigan "We have to make life good for our smart people." These are executives and investors who have created trillions in value with their technology based products and services. Their interests align with mine.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  You're entitled to believe that. But you might want to consider whether this is (1) uniformly true for HN's readership demographic, and (2) uniformly true for the American electorate.
  - cdrini 2y ago
    Hmm why should they consider those things? They stated their opinion and priorities, which will likely influence their voting decision. The views of HN or the American electorate play no role in the statement of that individual's priorities, no?
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      I think the simplest answer here is “almost everyone’s revealed preference is for living in a deliberative democracy, not a demagogic one.” In other words: GP probably wants, in an ordinary setting, to have their views understood (why bother responding at all if not?). In which case they should similarly set aside some space for understanding why others don’t share them.
      - lilsoso 2y ago
        Why am I being voted down for pointing out, validly, that many people disagree? Why the rush to censor?
        cdrini 2y ago
        Downvoting isn't really a mechanism to censor, flagging is. The intent of downvoting is usually just disagreement. My guess would be you're being downvoted for a few reasons: - A few of the people you mentioned are somewhat polarising, so folks who dislike them, might downvote - in a measure of a president's efficacy, mentioning people who think a president is ineffective isn't as convincing as say mentioning actions of the president that were ineffective. You will, for any president, be able to find a large number of people who will passionately argue for/against that president's effectiveness. - Your sources are very long videos, which discourage verifying if folks want to see what they said about him. Eg "Here's why he's in effective: [3 hours of podcasts]" - One of your sources is a podcast which features Trump himself, which greatly brings into doubt the objectivism of the video - the Zuckerberg short is very speculative, further weakening this collection of sources
        lilsoso 2y ago
  - justinhj 2y ago
    I gave my opinion. The 1) and 2) I don’t speak for or care to be told to fall in line for.

wetmore 2y ago

Condemnation from a lot of those names is a strong positive signal imo.

rsynnott 2y ago

Ah, yes, just the people I ask for a sensible objective view on the world. Like “well, this collection of the weirdest Silicon Valley people available took some time out of their busy schedule of hawking bitcoin or metaverses or magic robots or whatever to give a Very Important Opinion” is _not_ the world’s strongest argument.