5 ms·

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word

by paul 19y ago

"Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again." -- police officer Barbrady, South Park (1998) I made it about 1/3 of the way into The Fountainhead but got bored and lost interest. Self-interest is ok, but I'm not going to make it my religion. The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)

uuilly 19y ago
Clever, I just voted you up, but consider the Apple vs. MS saga. One may have been a better investment, but which one is better?
- paul 19y ago
  The funny thing is that the answer to both question is unclear. For investment, it definitely depends on when you invested: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z... http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=MSFT&l=on&z... The same goes for the early years btw -- apple had it's IPO much sooner than ms. As for which product or company is better, that depends on what you're looking for. I don't believe that there is a single best solution. It's obvious that they both make products that meet a lot of people's needs.
rrival 19y ago
Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright or that by tirelessly adhering to existing architectural principles you're continuing to develop derivative crap, you might see what he did as a bit more revolutionary and appreciate what her message was a bit more. I couldn't put it down, but then, I don't really watch South Park.
- gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
  > Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright No it isn't. Both Frank Lloyd Wright and Ayn Rand explicitly refuted such a claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Cultural_References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Cultural_Ref... In any case, Lloyd Wright's buildings might well have pushed the envelope on art, but they've been criticised on technical grounds. And the idea that "if you don't do anything you're told not to you'll never do anything new" really doesn't need an 800-page exposition by someone who demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for humans, a penchant for rape, and no particular talent as a writer.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
  - wyday 19y ago
    > 800-page exposition by someone who demonstrates ..., a penchant for rape, ... The relationships between her characters are usually sadomasochistic, not sexual abuse. But even when it does appear it takes up barely ten pages in her novels. > ... and no particular talent as a writer. Ironically contrary to her message, the popularity of her books suggests otherwise.
    - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
      Yes, but Jeffrey Archer and Jackie Collins are popular.
      - wyday 19y ago
        OK. And because of this Rand isn't?
        gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        You said "popularity => talent" (ie. !popularity \/ talent = T). You also said "Rand has popularity". I presented two cases where I assert popularity /\ !talent = T, ie. !popularity \/ talent = F, to show that !(popularity => talent). Your response: "so you claim that Rand does not have popularity". Er, wtf?
robg 19y ago
Not a huge Rand fan but I just thought it was an interesting take on why business folks have adopted her. The philosophy works well with architecture because of "classical" limitations and the power of the individual to evoke change in the modern world. That's a message that any startupper needs even as you're certainly right - we need to iterate with customers in mind. But then, that's our sector. Imagine those crazy businesses where the innovator knew that, if he asked, people wanted faster horses.
- paul 19y ago
  Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example, Esperanto may be a more "rational" and well designed language, but I'm going to keep using English because that's what works for me. The early cars were "horseless carriages" because that was easier to build and easier for people to relate to, and there's nothing wrong with that. The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" is just so arrogant and wrong, but it seemed to be the main point of the Fountainhead (based on the 1/3 of the book that I read 10 years ago...)
  - pg 19y ago
    I don't think early car manufacturers deliberately made cars look like horseless carriages because they'd be familiar or easy to build. I think it was more because it was the only kind of vehicle they could imagine.
    - paul 19y ago
      Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there was a conscious decision -- everyone is limited by what is familiar, including designers and inventors. The point is that retaining familiar elements doesn't doom us to stagnation. Incremental improvements are usually sufficient and more successful.
      - vlad 19y ago
SwellJoe 19y ago
"The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)" This one made me laugh a little. What did people want from gmail, Paul? Folders, right? Lots of good folder-related features. Did you give it to them? Nope. You made search work right, threaded the conversations, and to hell with what people wanted. You gave'em what they didn't know they wanted (but what was right). And you were right to do so. Sure, now you have labels, which are just like folders only not called folders, but I'm pretty sure you weren't around for that (or at least you didn't push for labels if you were around for it).
- paul 19y ago
  Yes, I'm not suggesting that you have to deliver exactly what people ask for, but you shouldn't completely ignore it either. I'm basically saying that both extremes are wrong. You need to be both arrogant and humble at the same time. I know what's best, but I might be wrong. :) Gmail definitely contains some compromises, and I'm ok with that. I'd rather have a good product with millions of users than a "perfect" product with zero users (not that perfection is possible anyway).
  - SwellJoe 19y ago
    "Yes, I'm not suggesting that you have to deliver exactly what people ask for, but you shouldn't completely ignore it either. I'm basically saying that both extremes are wrong. You need to be both arrogant and humble at the same time. I know what's best, but I might be wrong. :)" I agree, and I know you're not as arrogant as a Rand hero. Your post just made me laugh. ;-) But I'm glad you clarified, because the "I know what's best" sentence could very well be the best thing ever said on News.YC.

by paul 19y ago

uuilly 19y ago

Clever, I just voted you up, but consider the Apple vs. MS saga. One may have been a better investment, but which one is better?

paul 19y ago
The funny thing is that the answer to both question is unclear. For investment, it definitely depends on when you invested: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z... http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=MSFT&l=on&z... The same goes for the early years btw -- apple had it's IPO much sooner than ms. As for which product or company is better, that depends on what you're looking for. I don't believe that there is a single best solution. It's obvious that they both make products that meet a lot of people's needs.

rrival 19y ago

Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright or that by tirelessly adhering to existing architectural principles you're continuing to develop derivative crap, you might see what he did as a bit more revolutionary and appreciate what her message was a bit more. I couldn't put it down, but then, I don't really watch South Park.

gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
> Perhaps if you'd realized that The Fountainhead is based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright No it isn't. Both Frank Lloyd Wright and Ayn Rand explicitly refuted such a claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Cultural_References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright#Cultural_Ref... In any case, Lloyd Wright's buildings might well have pushed the envelope on art, but they've been criticised on technical grounds. And the idea that "if you don't do anything you're told not to you'll never do anything new" really doesn't need an 800-page exposition by someone who demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for humans, a penchant for rape, and no particular talent as a writer.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- wyday 19y ago
  > 800-page exposition by someone who demonstrates ..., a penchant for rape, ... The relationships between her characters are usually sadomasochistic, not sexual abuse. But even when it does appear it takes up barely ten pages in her novels. > ... and no particular talent as a writer. Ironically contrary to her message, the popularity of her books suggests otherwise.
  - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
    Yes, but Jeffrey Archer and Jackie Collins are popular.
    - wyday 19y ago
      OK. And because of this Rand isn't?
      - gwenhwyfaer 19y ago
        You said "popularity => talent" (ie. !popularity \/ talent = T). You also said "Rand has popularity". I presented two cases where I assert popularity /\ !talent = T, ie. !popularity \/ talent = F, to show that !(popularity => talent). Your response: "so you claim that Rand does not have popularity". Er, wtf?

robg 19y ago

Not a huge Rand fan but I just thought it was an interesting take on why business folks have adopted her. The philosophy works well with architecture because of "classical" limitations and the power of the individual to evoke change in the modern world. That's a message that any startupper needs even as you're certainly right - we need to iterate with customers in mind. But then, that's our sector. Imagine those crazy businesses where the innovator knew that, if he asked, people wanted faster horses.

paul 19y ago
Yes, clearly we sometimes need to push what is "normal" and create things that people don't yet know they want, but we should be pragmatic about it. For example, Esperanto may be a more "rational" and well designed language, but I'm going to keep using English because that's what works for me. The early cars were "horseless carriages" because that was easier to build and easier for people to relate to, and there's nothing wrong with that. The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" is just so arrogant and wrong, but it seemed to be the main point of the Fountainhead (based on the 1/3 of the book that I read 10 years ago...)
- pg 19y ago
  I don't think early car manufacturers deliberately made cars look like horseless carriages because they'd be familiar or easy to build. I think it was more because it was the only kind of vehicle they could imagine.
  - paul 19y ago
    Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there was a conscious decision -- everyone is limited by what is familiar, including designers and inventors. The point is that retaining familiar elements doesn't doom us to stagnation. Incremental improvements are usually sufficient and more successful.
    - vlad 19y ago

SwellJoe 19y ago

"The architect who wouldn't design what people like (because it wasn't rational, as I recall) seemed like a really annoying person to deal with. And I certainly wouldn't want to invest in his startup :)" This one made me laugh a little. What did people want from gmail, Paul? Folders, right? Lots of good folder-related features. Did you give it to them? Nope. You made search work right, threaded the conversations, and to hell with what people wanted. You gave'em what they didn't know they wanted (but what was right). And you were right to do so. Sure, now you have labels, which are just like folders only not called folders, but I'm pretty sure you weren't around for that (or at least you didn't push for labels if you were around for it).

paul 19y ago
Yes, I'm not suggesting that you have to deliver exactly what people ask for, but you shouldn't completely ignore it either. I'm basically saying that both extremes are wrong. You need to be both arrogant and humble at the same time. I know what's best, but I might be wrong. :) Gmail definitely contains some compromises, and I'm ok with that. I'd rather have a good product with millions of users than a "perfect" product with zero users (not that perfection is possible anyway).
- SwellJoe 19y ago
  "Yes, I'm not suggesting that you have to deliver exactly what people ask for, but you shouldn't completely ignore it either. I'm basically saying that both extremes are wrong. You need to be both arrogant and humble at the same time. I know what's best, but I might be wrong. :)" I agree, and I know you're not as arrogant as a Rand hero. Your post just made me laugh. ;-) But I'm glad you clarified, because the "I know what's best" sentence could very well be the best thing ever said on News.YC.