5 ms·
Look it up yourself. Paul Graham does not have a core competency regarding what smart people are or are not willing to do. That would be sociology or psycholo
by sympil 2y ago
Look it up yourself. Paul Graham does not have a core competency regarding what smart people are or are not willing to do. That would be sociology or psychology or economics.
https://bsky.app/profile/isilanor.bsky.social/post/3ldx24kvcls2k https://bsky.app/profile/isilanor.bsky.social/post/3ldx24kvc...
- rhubarbtree 2y agoIf it wasn’t clear, I tried to look it up myself and couldn’t find it, hence the request.
- rhubarbtree 2y agoJust realised that this is a subtweet of PG's post. So I think what he's saying here, with some brevity, is: startups require lots of smart people to succeed. If the boss isn't nice to them, then those people can easily find work elsewhere. Therefore, the boss will have to be nice to them. Therefore, the boss can't be a horrible person. What would you say is incorrect about this?
- sympil 2y agoEverything.
- ace_of_spades 2y ago/s so horrible people are distinguished by the fact that they are never nice to their in-group?
- rhubarbtree 2y agoThat isn’t what I said or implied, as you know, and the same for a generous reading of PG.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sympil 2y agoTherefore, the boss will have to be nice to them. Therefore, the boss can't be a horrible person. You should study up on logic. You are saying that since person A has to be nice to people who work for startups they can’t be a horrible person. This means that if a person is horrible they can’t be nice to people who work for startups. This is egregiously wrong.
- rhubarbtree 2y agoI think what PG is saying in this situation is, he's using "evil" as shorthand for "is not nice to their employees", whereas you're reading it as "is fundamentally bad in every way".