3 ms·

The current iteration of Silicon Valley is just sad to see. I remember the sort of techno-libertarianism from the 90ies, and... while I didn't always agree, it

by davidw 1y ago

The current iteration of Silicon Valley is just sad to see. I remember the sort of techno-libertarianism from the 90ies, and... while I didn't always agree, it seemed at least kind of idealistic. Also unrealistic, but it didn't seem to come from a place of cruelty or a thirst for power. Quite the contrary, they didn't seem very good at getting the government on their side back then. Now they have money and power and use both in pretty obscene ways, like starving children in Africa to death by yanking the aid that was keeping them alive away. It almost feels crazy to write that, like... it can't be real or there must be some nuance, but that is exactly what gutting USAID did. I want my nerdy hacker people back, working on stuff that makes the world better through the use of technology.

mrbukkake 1y ago
[flagged]
beeflet 1y ago
[flagged]
luckydonkey 1y ago
> Now they have money and power and use both in pretty obscene ways, like starving children in Africa to death by yanking the aid that was keeping them alive away. It’s because there’s lot of corruption in places receiving aid, look it up. Fixing problems is not as simple as giving someone money, there needs to be lots of accountability, which is often missing. There are fake NGOs and non-profits which essentially treat these foreign aid monies as slush funds. It makes sense to tighten the purse strings for now while the national debt crisis is looming large. It would also be great if other high GDP nations would contribute to this kind of development.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
  The solution to that corruption can't be to just stop giving aid or hiring your own (corrupt) NGOs. That's the whole problem with DOGE. Instead of taking on the difficult work of making things more efficient they did a quick hit and run job to cut things they didn't understand or Musk didn't like.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Is corruption so evil that it's worth killing a huge number of people to reduce it? Aid being diverted to people who don't need it is a real problem, but solving it by cutting off the aid is rather extreme. As far as the debt goes, the amounts involved are inconsequential. You're going to cause all those deaths to delay sovereign default or hyperinflation by a few hours.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    Moralizing people have some really bizarre moral utility functions. Somehow more people is always more better and any kind of finite reality does not apply. It's like a moral ponzi scheme.
- jmdeon 1y ago
  > Fixing problems is not as simple as giving someone money I've heard the exact opposite. Usually it's the strings attached that end up being perfect for the corrupt to grab onto and manipulate.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    Or it's going to be corrupt no matter what. Like life, corruption finds a way.
- cogman10 1y ago
  The aide money wasn't there to fix things, it was there for soft power. Once you understand that it makes a whole lot more sense why corruption was never really addressed and things didn't really get better. The way it works was simple "Do what we want you to do OR ELSE we'll pull your aide. It'd be a shame if that happened". That is ultimately the power that allowed the US to keep these countries in check. To make them follow US trade policy in lock step. To sell that to the american public was simply masking the whole thing as giving aide. Now, I think it's wrong to just completely pull the plug. The aide wasn't doing nothing and it wasn't just soft power. The needed reform shouldn't have happened in one big action.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    That's how it started but over time the program was captured by bureaucrat insiders to line their own pockets. It won't let me reply, but I agree. I think when organizations are new and shiny the stakeholders are excited and pay attention. Over time attention shifts to the new shiny thing and only inertia and self dealing keep the organization together.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      Bureaucrat insiders lining their pockets has been happening from the beginning. That's a part of the soft power. It keeps everyone in line so long as the money pipeline keeps on flowing. One of the most famous scandals was the Teapot Dome scandal of 1923 [1], long predating UAID (1961). It has exactly the same make up of corruption that people critique USAID of having. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal
YZF 1y ago
Wasn't the US giving money it doesn't have though? I also read the headlines that say millions of deaths in Africa due to starvation and HIV... Do we have some support for that in e.g. excess deaths statistics since the funding was cancelled? When searching I see one headline say 74k excess deaths in Africa by 2030 and another headline say 500k deaths in South Africa alone in the next 10 years. Which one is right? If giving more money to Africa helped saves more lives, should the USA do it? I.e. should it have tripled the aid instead of cancelling it. Should it raise taxes to give Africa more aid? What is a non-emotional/rational way to think about foreign aid? What part of the aid is getting to where it's really needed? How efficient are the organizations delivering it? One way to think about foreign aid is that it buys influence. I think this is why the US does this. But countries like South Africa are openly confrontational with the USA despite the aid they receive and work against US interests. If South Africa e.g. prefers to align with China and Russia (e.g. in BRICS) shouldn't China and Russia take on this aid? What about the rest of the world? I think the observation that "Silicon Valley" is starving children in Africa is at least inaccurate. I'm sure there are rich people in SV who are trying to do more. It's not one uniform group. It's also not clear what is actually the best thing to do.
some_furry 1y ago
> I want my nerdy hacker people back, working on stuff that makes the world better through the use of technology. There are still people like that out there. They just haven't been captured by venture capital. It's a shame that the Money has decided that authoritarianism is the way to go, but hopefully the pendulum swings back in our lifetime.

by davidw 1y ago

mrbukkake 1y ago

[flagged]

beeflet 1y ago

[flagged]

luckydonkey 1y ago

> Now they have money and power and use both in pretty obscene ways, like starving children in Africa to death by yanking the aid that was keeping them alive away. It’s because there’s lot of corruption in places receiving aid, look it up. Fixing problems is not as simple as giving someone money, there needs to be lots of accountability, which is often missing. There are fake NGOs and non-profits which essentially treat these foreign aid monies as slush funds. It makes sense to tighten the purse strings for now while the national debt crisis is looming large. It would also be great if other high GDP nations would contribute to this kind of development.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
The solution to that corruption can't be to just stop giving aid or hiring your own (corrupt) NGOs. That's the whole problem with DOGE. Instead of taking on the difficult work of making things more efficient they did a quick hit and run job to cut things they didn't understand or Musk didn't like.
wat10000 1y ago
Is corruption so evil that it's worth killing a huge number of people to reduce it? Aid being diverted to people who don't need it is a real problem, but solving it by cutting off the aid is rather extreme. As far as the debt goes, the amounts involved are inconsequential. You're going to cause all those deaths to delay sovereign default or hyperinflation by a few hours.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  Moralizing people have some really bizarre moral utility functions. Somehow more people is always more better and any kind of finite reality does not apply. It's like a moral ponzi scheme.
jmdeon 1y ago
> Fixing problems is not as simple as giving someone money I've heard the exact opposite. Usually it's the strings attached that end up being perfect for the corrupt to grab onto and manipulate.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  Or it's going to be corrupt no matter what. Like life, corruption finds a way.
cogman10 1y ago
The aide money wasn't there to fix things, it was there for soft power. Once you understand that it makes a whole lot more sense why corruption was never really addressed and things didn't really get better. The way it works was simple "Do what we want you to do OR ELSE we'll pull your aide. It'd be a shame if that happened". That is ultimately the power that allowed the US to keep these countries in check. To make them follow US trade policy in lock step. To sell that to the american public was simply masking the whole thing as giving aide. Now, I think it's wrong to just completely pull the plug. The aide wasn't doing nothing and it wasn't just soft power. The needed reform shouldn't have happened in one big action.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  That's how it started but over time the program was captured by bureaucrat insiders to line their own pockets. It won't let me reply, but I agree. I think when organizations are new and shiny the stakeholders are excited and pay attention. Over time attention shifts to the new shiny thing and only inertia and self dealing keep the organization together.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    Bureaucrat insiders lining their pockets has been happening from the beginning. That's a part of the soft power. It keeps everyone in line so long as the money pipeline keeps on flowing. One of the most famous scandals was the Teapot Dome scandal of 1923 [1], long predating UAID (1961). It has exactly the same make up of corruption that people critique USAID of having. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal

YZF 1y ago

Wasn't the US giving money it doesn't have though? I also read the headlines that say millions of deaths in Africa due to starvation and HIV... Do we have some support for that in e.g. excess deaths statistics since the funding was cancelled? When searching I see one headline say 74k excess deaths in Africa by 2030 and another headline say 500k deaths in South Africa alone in the next 10 years. Which one is right? If giving more money to Africa helped saves more lives, should the USA do it? I.e. should it have tripled the aid instead of cancelling it. Should it raise taxes to give Africa more aid? What is a non-emotional/rational way to think about foreign aid? What part of the aid is getting to where it's really needed? How efficient are the organizations delivering it? One way to think about foreign aid is that it buys influence. I think this is why the US does this. But countries like South Africa are openly confrontational with the USA despite the aid they receive and work against US interests. If South Africa e.g. prefers to align with China and Russia (e.g. in BRICS) shouldn't China and Russia take on this aid? What about the rest of the world? I think the observation that "Silicon Valley" is starving children in Africa is at least inaccurate. I'm sure there are rich people in SV who are trying to do more. It's not one uniform group. It's also not clear what is actually the best thing to do.

some_furry 1y ago

> I want my nerdy hacker people back, working on stuff that makes the world better through the use of technology. There are still people like that out there. They just haven't been captured by venture capital. It's a shame that the Money has decided that authoritarianism is the way to go, but hopefully the pendulum swings back in our lifetime.