5 ms·

> Lee's stated goal was to “desensitize everyone to the phrase ‘cheating.’” If you say it enough, he argues, “cheat begins to lose its meaning.” A16z praised Le

> Lee's stated goal was to “desensitize everyone to the phrase ‘cheating.’” If you say it enough, he argues, “cheat begins to lose its meaning.” A16z praised Lee's approach as “rooted in deliberate strategy and intentionality.” Investors: but surely they won't cheat me!

MattGaiser 1mo ago
Do they care? Just cheat the people in the next round!
sscaryterry 1mo ago
I'm tired of cheats.
codemog 1mo ago
Lee is a product of his environment. Tech interviews are bullshit and he exposed it. School work is mostly bullshit and he exposed it. How can you honestly tell this young man not to cheat and get ahead when the president does it regularly? We’re a spiritually dead country and the youth is reflecting it. Don’t use Lee as the scapegoat.
- prolly97 1mo ago
  This - though I'm not certain that the product really solves any of these identified issues of "y is bullshit"
  - MattGaiser 1mo ago
    In America, solving something is to exempt the individual from the problem. So it solves it by letting you pass the tech interview.
- pibaker 1mo ago
  If you see a pile of trash by the side of the road and tell yourself it is ok to dump your trash there, well, you just explained why there is a pile of trash there in the first place. You have agency over your own actions. Don't blame others for your self inflicted "spiritual death."
  - Arodex 1mo ago
    Millions decided to reward a liar and cheater with the highest office in the country. Twice! At one point, socially attuned people are going to go that way. And even if you try to educate your children well, they see in their formative years what society rewards.
    - iso1631 1mo ago
      Compare Nixon to Trump and you see the problem with America,
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - estearum 1mo ago
      Yes, but they should be criticized all the while... obviously. In fact, beyond criticizing them, they should be denigrated and made fun of incessantly. Ostracized and reaffirmed as low-status individuals, no matter how much wealth they can acquire through low-status bullshit, they'll never be worthy of respect.
      - e40 1mo ago
        Isn’t that how we got here? Making fun and ridiculing the low status, dumb people said “fuck you” with their vote for him, twice.
        estearum 1mo ago
        No, actually. It's a cute story but there's no evidence of it. We got here by putting two of the most hated people in the country on the ballot against him, twice. One was actively hated for decades by the ultra-powerful evangelical voting bloc and hardly loved even by her own party, then another who couldn't be more closely affiliated with the incumbent during a period of high inflation (globally) that ousted incumbents in virtually every election (globally) that year. These are especially doomed against a completely amoral propaganda machine that's willing to say, in private, that the candidate is "a demonic force", while in public doing everything they can to get him to power (see: Tucker Carlson). Earning legitimate democratic victory against people who are quite literally and explicitly bad-faith actors is very hard. And lastly, Roy Lee, Marc Andreessen and their ilk are nothing like the people who you're referring to. Being a low-status, cheating, amoral loser like Roy Lee is completely distinct from being a lower- or middle-income American worker.
- akoboldfrying 1mo ago
  I disagree that tech interviews are bullshit. The biggest tech companies (MS, Google) have invested many dollars, and changed course at least once (remember MS's lateral thinking questions? How many screws in an airplane?) in looking for the most effective ways to quickly gauge whether someone is likely to be a productive SWE. They have done this because they correctly believe that there is a wide range of candidate abilities out there and it is critical to hire as few "lemons" as possible; in particular, not hiring lemons is much more important than neglecting to hire someone who would have been really good. Thinking about it from their POV makes this immediately clear. I think what you're really saying here is that you don't like tech interviews, which is understandable, but ultimately doesn't amount to either a moral or a technical argument against them.
  - Hizonner 1mo ago
    > How many screws in an airplane? So you're suggesting that an enterprise that would ever have even considered routinely using any stupid bullshit question along those lines is somehow engaged in a finely-honed and effective process for creating an optimal screening system? It doesn't matter how often you "change course" if you obviously have no idea how to steer in the first place.
    - SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
      Yes. Lateral thinking is valuable, and the industry didn't at the time know any better ways to test it. Now we have system design questions, so we can get the same signal asking candidates for ad hoc estimates of QPS or whatever.
- kristjansson 1mo ago
  The operative part of schoolwork is … not the work part? Of course school work is bullshit, in the sense that the teacher already knows what 7x9 is or who fought at Waterloo or whatever. The point is not the work product, it’s that the student produced it and has been incrementally improved by the experience!
serial_dev 1mo ago
Some of these SV "founder mode" people do speak like sociopaths. It's probably a good base for success in the industry. "I don't get it, why are they confessing? They are not confessing. They are bragging"
- e40 1mo ago
  They speak that way because they are.
optimalsolver 1mo ago
[flagged]
- MisterTea 1mo ago
  Cheaters ate my face. FTFY :-)
  - nchmy 1mo ago
    whoosh
    - MisterTea 1mo ago
      I'm well aware of the meme so that whoosh sound you heard was actually my joke passing over your head.
      - nchmy 1mo ago
        I cant believe I'm actually going to try to explain how your joke wasn't a joke, because you missed the initial joke. But here we are... the "meme" is leopards ate my face https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/, and they said "cheetahs at my face". And for some inexplicable reason you then tried to correct/FTFY to proper "Cheaters" spelling, ruining the joke/pun entirely. Erroneous pedants are surely the saddest of people...
cmrdporcupine 1mo ago
They just need to get out before the next fool gets in.
ryandrake 1mo ago
Y Combinator's application still asks: "Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage." They don't actually use the word "cheat" but that's what they're asking for: Are you willing to cheat if it gives you an advantage?
- tavavex 1mo ago
  Is that really a surprising trait to expect from a venture capitalist persona? As we go on, especially as most of the simple problems get solved, the system everyone blindly trusted has turned to uphold generally positive trends has turned to lies, manipulation, exploitative practices, loophole engineering and abuse. What I would expect from a successful VC applicant today isn't savvy business sense and actual good ideas, but an unrelenting willingness to do anything short of putting your life on the line for profit. There's no such thing as going low for these people, they are rewarded for using every trick in the book to earn an extra cent.
  - jihadjihad 1mo ago
    > anything short of putting your life on the line for profit Why should they put their own life on the line when there are so many others whose lives could be used instead?
- webdoodle 1mo ago
  Is it really cheating if the system is vulnerable? What about things like a filibuster or slow walking an order?
  - Oras 1mo ago
    By your logic, hacking is legal due to vulnerabilities
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
- gkoberger 1mo ago
lukewarm707 1mo ago
society is a coordination problem which involves costly cooperation of individuals to gain surplus for society as a whole, when selfish defection is advantageous. being largely ethical and being ruled is so baked into the identity of a citizen that we do not see mass defection. someone who does defect by being unethical gains and maybe rules others. there is no requirement for a cooperative agreement or social contract signed by the leader or plutocrats of a society. they can and do defect by being corrupt. more people are realising in the middle class that they too can defect and gain personally at others' expense. for example, realising that not recycling saves time and harms only others, or starting these companies listed in the article. the more people that do defect, the less cooperation, which is a social breakdown. under mass defection you have the law of the jungle, which is the existing paradigm of marc andreessen and peers, they are sociopathic. this is all to say that A16Z can cheat in the knowledge that only comparable competitors will cheat, the people as a whole who are harmed will not.

MattGaiser 1mo ago

Do they care? Just cheat the people in the next round!

sscaryterry 1mo ago

I'm tired of cheats.

codemog 1mo ago

Lee is a product of his environment. Tech interviews are bullshit and he exposed it. School work is mostly bullshit and he exposed it. How can you honestly tell this young man not to cheat and get ahead when the president does it regularly? We’re a spiritually dead country and the youth is reflecting it. Don’t use Lee as the scapegoat.

prolly97 1mo ago
This - though I'm not certain that the product really solves any of these identified issues of "y is bullshit"
- MattGaiser 1mo ago
  In America, solving something is to exempt the individual from the problem. So it solves it by letting you pass the tech interview.
pibaker 1mo ago
If you see a pile of trash by the side of the road and tell yourself it is ok to dump your trash there, well, you just explained why there is a pile of trash there in the first place. You have agency over your own actions. Don't blame others for your self inflicted "spiritual death."
- Arodex 1mo ago
  Millions decided to reward a liar and cheater with the highest office in the country. Twice! At one point, socially attuned people are going to go that way. And even if you try to educate your children well, they see in their formative years what society rewards.
  - iso1631 1mo ago
    Compare Nixon to Trump and you see the problem with America,
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - estearum 1mo ago
    Yes, but they should be criticized all the while... obviously. In fact, beyond criticizing them, they should be denigrated and made fun of incessantly. Ostracized and reaffirmed as low-status individuals, no matter how much wealth they can acquire through low-status bullshit, they'll never be worthy of respect.
    - e40 1mo ago
      Isn’t that how we got here? Making fun and ridiculing the low status, dumb people said “fuck you” with their vote for him, twice.
      - estearum 1mo ago
        No, actually. It's a cute story but there's no evidence of it. We got here by putting two of the most hated people in the country on the ballot against him, twice. One was actively hated for decades by the ultra-powerful evangelical voting bloc and hardly loved even by her own party, then another who couldn't be more closely affiliated with the incumbent during a period of high inflation (globally) that ousted incumbents in virtually every election (globally) that year. These are especially doomed against a completely amoral propaganda machine that's willing to say, in private, that the candidate is "a demonic force", while in public doing everything they can to get him to power (see: Tucker Carlson). Earning legitimate democratic victory against people who are quite literally and explicitly bad-faith actors is very hard. And lastly, Roy Lee, Marc Andreessen and their ilk are nothing like the people who you're referring to. Being a low-status, cheating, amoral loser like Roy Lee is completely distinct from being a lower- or middle-income American worker.
akoboldfrying 1mo ago
I disagree that tech interviews are bullshit. The biggest tech companies (MS, Google) have invested many dollars, and changed course at least once (remember MS's lateral thinking questions? How many screws in an airplane?) in looking for the most effective ways to quickly gauge whether someone is likely to be a productive SWE. They have done this because they correctly believe that there is a wide range of candidate abilities out there and it is critical to hire as few "lemons" as possible; in particular, not hiring lemons is much more important than neglecting to hire someone who would have been really good. Thinking about it from their POV makes this immediately clear. I think what you're really saying here is that you don't like tech interviews, which is understandable, but ultimately doesn't amount to either a moral or a technical argument against them.
- Hizonner 1mo ago
  > How many screws in an airplane? So you're suggesting that an enterprise that would ever have even considered routinely using any stupid bullshit question along those lines is somehow engaged in a finely-honed and effective process for creating an optimal screening system? It doesn't matter how often you "change course" if you obviously have no idea how to steer in the first place.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
    Yes. Lateral thinking is valuable, and the industry didn't at the time know any better ways to test it. Now we have system design questions, so we can get the same signal asking candidates for ad hoc estimates of QPS or whatever.
kristjansson 1mo ago
The operative part of schoolwork is … not the work part? Of course school work is bullshit, in the sense that the teacher already knows what 7x9 is or who fought at Waterloo or whatever. The point is not the work product, it’s that the student produced it and has been incrementally improved by the experience!

serial_dev 1mo ago

Some of these SV "founder mode" people do speak like sociopaths. It's probably a good base for success in the industry. "I don't get it, why are they confessing? They are not confessing. They are bragging"

e40 1mo ago
They speak that way because they are.

optimalsolver 1mo ago

[flagged]

MisterTea 1mo ago
Cheaters ate my face. FTFY :-)
- nchmy 1mo ago
  whoosh
  - MisterTea 1mo ago
    I'm well aware of the meme so that whoosh sound you heard was actually my joke passing over your head.
    - nchmy 1mo ago
      I cant believe I'm actually going to try to explain how your joke wasn't a joke, because you missed the initial joke. But here we are... the "meme" is leopards ate my face https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/, and they said "cheetahs at my face". And for some inexplicable reason you then tried to correct/FTFY to proper "Cheaters" spelling, ruining the joke/pun entirely. Erroneous pedants are surely the saddest of people...

cmrdporcupine 1mo ago

They just need to get out before the next fool gets in.

ryandrake 1mo ago

Y Combinator's application still asks: "Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage." They don't actually use the word "cheat" but that's what they're asking for: Are you willing to cheat if it gives you an advantage?

tavavex 1mo ago
Is that really a surprising trait to expect from a venture capitalist persona? As we go on, especially as most of the simple problems get solved, the system everyone blindly trusted has turned to uphold generally positive trends has turned to lies, manipulation, exploitative practices, loophole engineering and abuse. What I would expect from a successful VC applicant today isn't savvy business sense and actual good ideas, but an unrelenting willingness to do anything short of putting your life on the line for profit. There's no such thing as going low for these people, they are rewarded for using every trick in the book to earn an extra cent.
- jihadjihad 1mo ago
  > anything short of putting your life on the line for profit Why should they put their own life on the line when there are so many others whose lives could be used instead?
webdoodle 1mo ago
Is it really cheating if the system is vulnerable? What about things like a filibuster or slow walking an order?
- Oras 1mo ago
  By your logic, hacking is legal due to vulnerabilities
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
gkoberger 1mo ago

lukewarm707 1mo ago

society is a coordination problem which involves costly cooperation of individuals to gain surplus for society as a whole, when selfish defection is advantageous. being largely ethical and being ruled is so baked into the identity of a citizen that we do not see mass defection. someone who does defect by being unethical gains and maybe rules others. there is no requirement for a cooperative agreement or social contract signed by the leader or plutocrats of a society. they can and do defect by being corrupt. more people are realising in the middle class that they too can defect and gain personally at others' expense. for example, realising that not recycling saves time and harms only others, or starting these companies listed in the article. the more people that do defect, the less cooperation, which is a social breakdown. under mass defection you have the law of the jungle, which is the existing paradigm of marc andreessen and peers, they are sociopathic. this is all to say that A16Z can cheat in the knowledge that only comparable competitors will cheat, the people as a whole who are harmed will not.