4 ms·

Invitation-only events don't belong in the technological scene. There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resou

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.

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.