7 ms·

Conferences

66 points by ciscoriordan 17y ago

unbannable 17y ago
Invitation-only events don't belong in the technological scene. There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means. Nerds are supposed to be on the side of the good guys.
- mellis 17y ago
  Invitation-only events are not only for people with "property". They also allow those with "energy" to keep an event from being diluted by those without it. Why shouldn't a group of hackers be able to get together with people they choose? Wouldn't the YC weekly dinners fit this category?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - menloparkbum 17y ago
    I'm obviously a fan of HN and by proxy, YC... but to be a devil's advocate... The people at the HN weekly meeting didn't choose to get together with each other, the rich guys who gave them money chose them and told them to be there. In contrast, superhappydevhouse is open to anyone who shows up.
    - jf 17y ago
      As one of the organizers for superhappydevhouse, one of my main goals is to keep it from ever becoming an invitation only event. I share a lot of sentiment that Fred Wilson expressed in his blog post. As superhappydevhouse has grown in popularity and size, this has made finding venues more difficult, we've been extremely fortunate and have had many generous people open their homes and businesses to us. The "dilution" issue that mellis mentions above has also been a concern, fortunately this hasn't been a difficult issue to address. All that we've needed to do so far is to explicitly state what sort of event we are holding ("A party for hackers and thinkers") as well as discouraging corporate self-promotion and recruiting.
- rms 17y ago
  I don't think TED is as hard to get into as it seems. You just need to have the $4,000, apply right after they open applications and make yourself sound interesting on your application.
  - neilc 17y ago
    The fact that you have to pay $4000 is a big reason why it is effectively hard for most people to get into TED.
    - rms 17y ago
      Right, I mean the $4000 is the hard part, not the invitation.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means. Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy. What's ironic is that a) many of the people at the top started out at the bottom and earned their way to the top, and b) those at the bottom are ultimately trying to cultivate the same things: wealth and connections. I find it incredibly naive to think that we're at some turning point in history where suddenly the world is going to become some kind of meritocracy and the people who are just starting out will behave any differently once they make it than people have been behaving forever. I also find it humorous that you think that people at the top are basically just dumb, boring people who lack vision and talent, and who have only their inherited wealth and connections to keep them on top. Give me a break.
  - netsp 17y ago
    Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. Is that a reason to dismiss? This may be a stumble on an idea that Marx would agree with, but noone is asking you to accept marxism wholesale. 'Sounds suspiciously like..', is a defensive way of thinking. It's wanting to know who's side you are on so you know what position to hold. It's almost like being afraid of being persuaded by argument.
  - unbannable 17y ago
    People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy. It's not that simple. There are people who have both wealth/connections and talent. There are good guys who are well-connected and wealthy. The moral battleground is the exchange rate between these two fundamental commodities. Talent should trade very high against property, but often it doesn't. The good guys are those who are trying to make the exchange rate proper; the bad guys believe the talented exist only to serve those who are already powerful. So powerful people who use their resources to advance those who are talented are among the good guys.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- anamax 17y ago
  > One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means. Classic sour grapes. Poor guy. In his universe the power fairies just wander around granting power to dolts. Meanwhile untapped capability just sits around wasted. Newsflash. Folks with actual useful capability don't stay "propertyless" for long - they produce, which gets them property, which lets them do more, getting them more property, and so on. Yes, there's some luck, but the luckiest people are those who have the moxie to take advantage of the luck that comes their way and they make more. Yes, some folks are born into money. If they're not capable, they lose it.
tudorachim 17y ago
I don't know what the point of going to a conference is, if you can get videos of the talks afterwards, like TED.
- ramchip 17y ago
  Networking. Meeting people. It's very important in scientific research to present your research, see others' work and exchange ideas. Conferences are a good way to do it. I guess hackers and programmers are quited used to doing this over the web, though.
- ciscoriordan 17y ago
  Getting to talk to speakers, meeting people, swag.
- ori_b 17y ago
  Participating. Talking to the people, exchanging ideas, having a beer with them, convincing them to do things your way because your ideas don't suck, and so on. Conferences aren't so much about the presentations as what happens after the presentations. Of course, this guy is a VC, and he's not so interested in the technical scene. He also seems to be talking about invitation only conferences, which are slightly silly.
- alain94040 17y ago
  There is a huge difference between watching the talks and actually being there. 50% of the value is the content of the talks, which supposedly described the latest and greatest. Just like in academia, the talks are actually dated: they have been prepared months before and don't really represent the latest. To know the latest, you need to chat with various people to find out what they are working on right now, that they can't quite announce yet. What's on stage is canned, in a sense. If you want to be in, you got to be there in person to catch where the future is. This has held true for me both in academia (research) and web 2.0.
  - ankhmoop 17y ago
    Given that the talks are canned, and the materials they are based on are almost always published, why should I pay for a conference when I can already leverage existing networking/social channels to stay in touch with the latest?
rw 17y ago
"So I avoid those most of all. Back in the 90s, I was unkown to the powers that be and could not get into TED. I don't forget that and that's why I'll never go to it. I don't want to play that game."
wannabetechgeek 17y ago
Timely for me as I'm missing TWTRCON (which costs $600!), but following the Twitter stream as I write this. Yup, conferences are great for networking especially for newbies like myself who don't have existing contacts in the industry. The best way for newbies to go about it though is to find all the free or inexpensive conferences available, or offer to volunteer. At least in the Bay Area, there's no shortage of opportunities. I'm volunteering at two in exchange for attendance, and have another four lined up that are free or under $25. The BarCamp movement and related is great for tech newbies and really speak to unbannable's points above.
- c3o 17y ago
  You can also just go hang out in the lobby for free at most of them -- if you don't care for the talks, that's just as good.
sachinag 17y ago
But even ostensibly open conferences can be difficult - I'm going to E3, and I made sure I could get dual credentialed as press just to make it easier for other people to talk to me. Some places are conferences just for the cool kids, but the cool kids still self-segregate at open places. That's why Wilson's so smart - he knows that's going to happen any way, so he only goes to places where his time won't be monopolized by the people he can talk to any other time.
paul9290 17y ago
Going to conferences is good for feeding your EGO!
joshu 17y ago
I liked conferences a lot when I worked in a different industry. Now I'm immersed in web 2.blah and get enough of it at work. I mostly stopped going to stuff.
eugenejen 17y ago
I can't help but say this out loud. "Fred is my kind of man!". I really feel that most of conferences are power games and I am just averse to power games. Maybe I am antisocial. But I believe doing the good work first then people will follow it. If luckily people likes it and adopt it, it is wonderful recognition. If unfortunately no one likes it, then I have to do it again with a twist keep experimenting. But whether recognition is bestowed, I do things because I like what I am doing. Life is never easy and it should be never easy. And the cool people are always outsiders, no matter in tech or arts.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

66 points by ciscoriordan 17y ago

Invitation-only events don't belong in the technological scene. There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means. Nerds are supposed to be on the side of the good guys.

mellis 17y ago
Invitation-only events are not only for people with "property". They also allow those with "energy" to keep an event from being diluted by those without it. Why shouldn't a group of hackers be able to get together with people they choose? Wouldn't the YC weekly dinners fit this category?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- menloparkbum 17y ago
  I'm obviously a fan of HN and by proxy, YC... but to be a devil's advocate... The people at the HN weekly meeting didn't choose to get together with each other, the rich guys who gave them money chose them and told them to be there. In contrast, superhappydevhouse is open to anyone who shows up.
  - jf 17y ago
    As one of the organizers for superhappydevhouse, one of my main goals is to keep it from ever becoming an invitation only event. I share a lot of sentiment that Fred Wilson expressed in his blog post. As superhappydevhouse has grown in popularity and size, this has made finding venues more difficult, we've been extremely fortunate and have had many generous people open their homes and businesses to us. The "dilution" issue that mellis mentions above has also been a concern, fortunately this hasn't been a difficult issue to address. All that we've needed to do so far is to explicitly state what sort of event we are holding ("A party for hackers and thinkers") as well as discouraging corporate self-promotion and recruiting.
rms 17y ago
I don't think TED is as hard to get into as it seems. You just need to have the $4,000, apply right after they open applications and make yourself sound interesting on your application.
- neilc 17y ago
  The fact that you have to pay $4000 is a big reason why it is effectively hard for most people to get into TED.
  - rms 17y ago
    Right, I mean the $4000 is the hard part, not the invitation.
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means. Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy. What's ironic is that a) many of the people at the top started out at the bottom and earned their way to the top, and b) those at the bottom are ultimately trying to cultivate the same things: wealth and connections. I find it incredibly naive to think that we're at some turning point in history where suddenly the world is going to become some kind of meritocracy and the people who are just starting out will behave any differently once they make it than people have been behaving forever. I also find it humorous that you think that people at the top are basically just dumb, boring people who lack vision and talent, and who have only their inherited wealth and connections to keep them on top. Give me a break.
- netsp 17y ago
  Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. Is that a reason to dismiss? This may be a stumble on an idea that Marx would agree with, but noone is asking you to accept marxism wholesale. 'Sounds suspiciously like..', is a defensive way of thinking. It's wanting to know who's side you are on so you know what position to hold. It's almost like being afraid of being persuaded by argument.
- unbannable 17y ago
  People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy. It's not that simple. There are people who have both wealth/connections and talent. There are good guys who are well-connected and wealthy. The moral battleground is the exchange rate between these two fundamental commodities. Talent should trade very high against property, but often it doesn't. The good guys are those who are trying to make the exchange rate proper; the bad guys believe the talented exist only to serve those who are already powerful. So powerful people who use their resources to advance those who are talented are among the good guys.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
anamax 17y ago
> One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means. Classic sour grapes. Poor guy. In his universe the power fairies just wander around granting power to dolts. Meanwhile untapped capability just sits around wasted. Newsflash. Folks with actual useful capability don't stay "propertyless" for long - they produce, which gets them property, which lets them do more, getting them more property, and so on. Yes, there's some luck, but the luckiest people are those who have the moxie to take advantage of the luck that comes their way and they make more. Yes, some folks are born into money. If they're not capable, they lose it.

tudorachim 17y ago

I don't know what the point of going to a conference is, if you can get videos of the talks afterwards, like TED.

ramchip 17y ago
Networking. Meeting people. It's very important in scientific research to present your research, see others' work and exchange ideas. Conferences are a good way to do it. I guess hackers and programmers are quited used to doing this over the web, though.
ciscoriordan 17y ago
Getting to talk to speakers, meeting people, swag.
ori_b 17y ago
Participating. Talking to the people, exchanging ideas, having a beer with them, convincing them to do things your way because your ideas don't suck, and so on. Conferences aren't so much about the presentations as what happens after the presentations. Of course, this guy is a VC, and he's not so interested in the technical scene. He also seems to be talking about invitation only conferences, which are slightly silly.
alain94040 17y ago
There is a huge difference between watching the talks and actually being there. 50% of the value is the content of the talks, which supposedly described the latest and greatest. Just like in academia, the talks are actually dated: they have been prepared months before and don't really represent the latest. To know the latest, you need to chat with various people to find out what they are working on right now, that they can't quite announce yet. What's on stage is canned, in a sense. If you want to be in, you got to be there in person to catch where the future is. This has held true for me both in academia (research) and web 2.0.
- ankhmoop 17y ago
  Given that the talks are canned, and the materials they are based on are almost always published, why should I pay for a conference when I can already leverage existing networking/social channels to stay in touch with the latest?

rw 17y ago

"So I avoid those most of all. Back in the 90s, I was unkown to the powers that be and could not get into TED. I don't forget that and that's why I'll never go to it. I don't want to play that game."

wannabetechgeek 17y ago

Timely for me as I'm missing TWTRCON (which costs $600!), but following the Twitter stream as I write this. Yup, conferences are great for networking especially for newbies like myself who don't have existing contacts in the industry. The best way for newbies to go about it though is to find all the free or inexpensive conferences available, or offer to volunteer. At least in the Bay Area, there's no shortage of opportunities. I'm volunteering at two in exchange for attendance, and have another four lined up that are free or under $25. The BarCamp movement and related is great for tech newbies and really speak to unbannable's points above.

c3o 17y ago
You can also just go hang out in the lobby for free at most of them -- if you don't care for the talks, that's just as good.

sachinag 17y ago

But even ostensibly open conferences can be difficult - I'm going to E3, and I made sure I could get dual credentialed as press just to make it easier for other people to talk to me. Some places are conferences just for the cool kids, but the cool kids still self-segregate at open places. That's why Wilson's so smart - he knows that's going to happen any way, so he only goes to places where his time won't be monopolized by the people he can talk to any other time.

paul9290 17y ago

Going to conferences is good for feeding your EGO!

joshu 17y ago

I liked conferences a lot when I worked in a different industry. Now I'm immersed in web 2.blah and get enough of it at work. I mostly stopped going to stuff.

eugenejen 17y ago

I can't help but say this out loud. "Fred is my kind of man!". I really feel that most of conferences are power games and I am just averse to power games. Maybe I am antisocial. But I believe doing the good work first then people will follow it. If luckily people likes it and adopt it, it is wonderful recognition. If unfortunately no one likes it, then I have to do it again with a twist keep experimenting. But whether recognition is bestowed, I do things because I like what I am doing. Life is never easy and it should be never easy. And the cool people are always outsiders, no matter in tech or arts.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]