3 ms·

The article says: "Paul Graham has been thinking about start-ups the last several years, and he is almost certainly going to write about start-ups now." Maybe.

The article says: "Paul Graham has been thinking about start-ups the last several years, and he is almost certainly going to write about start-ups now." Maybe. But I've noticed many of PG's tweets lately have been more political, dealing with other problems in the world.[0] I think it would be awesome if PG started attacking these kinds of problems more. Police violence, government surveillance, stuff happening in Israel, etc. Imagine a YC for politics. tl;dr, I think PG needs to start a new country. I'd apply. [0] https://twitter.com/paulg https://twitter.com/paulg

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bostonvaulter2 12y ago
Or at least a new city.
JetSpiegel 12y ago
Grahamtown.
- jzwinck 12y ago
  Nottingham, Tottenham, Birmingham, Buckingham. Graham.
randallsquared 12y ago
> Imagine a YC for politics. I can: it's the rest of the web. (edit: well, HN for politics, anyway) Of the couple hundred people I follow on Twitter, many of them I followed hoping to see insightful tech tweets, but lately the tech has been drowned out in constant twittering about politics and other activism. This is really tiring even when I agree completely with the sentiments involved; I don't want to have my blood pressure raised pointlessly every time I check my twitter feed. I keep thinking about trimming people from my feed, but in practice I just check my twitter feed less.
unclebucknasty 12y ago
>Police violence, government surveillance, stuff happening in Israel, etc. What's this idea of waiting for a handful of people to shape our entire world for us? You want these problems attacked? Then, attack them. I mean that sincerely and without contempt. Further, nothing uniquely (or otherwise) qualifies pg to address every issue on the planet. He's awesome at startups, is generally a smart guy, and seems to be genuinely concerned about people/the world. All great qualities, but is he, or anyone else, the guy/gal for everything? Is that even desirable? None of this is snark, nor aimed at pg or any one person in particular. I'm just genuinely baffled that so many thinking people want a few gatekeepers to shape the entire Universe for the rest of us. How about a little diversity of ideas that don't have to be sanctioned by the same three dudes to see the light of day? Investors and other kingdom-key holders are a tiny fraction of the population, yet wield hugely disproportionate economic influence as it is. Do we really want every social problem to be addressed by only the ideas/people they bless? So many here are libertarian or otherwise have a "thing" about centralization of power and control. Yet, they continuously advocate that certain people create their world for them. It's tempting, I suppose, to see this as acceptable when those people seem bright and benevolent. But, in reality, it is still a position that advocates for personal disempowerment and a relatively monolithic society.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

bostonvaulter2 12y ago

Or at least a new city.

JetSpiegel 12y ago

Grahamtown.

jzwinck 12y ago
Nottingham, Tottenham, Birmingham, Buckingham. Graham.

randallsquared 12y ago

> Imagine a YC for politics. I can: it's the rest of the web. (edit: well, HN for politics, anyway) Of the couple hundred people I follow on Twitter, many of them I followed hoping to see insightful tech tweets, but lately the tech has been drowned out in constant twittering about politics and other activism. This is really tiring even when I agree completely with the sentiments involved; I don't want to have my blood pressure raised pointlessly every time I check my twitter feed. I keep thinking about trimming people from my feed, but in practice I just check my twitter feed less.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

>Police violence, government surveillance, stuff happening in Israel, etc. What's this idea of waiting for a handful of people to shape our entire world for us? You want these problems attacked? Then, attack them. I mean that sincerely and without contempt. Further, nothing uniquely (or otherwise) qualifies pg to address every issue on the planet. He's awesome at startups, is generally a smart guy, and seems to be genuinely concerned about people/the world. All great qualities, but is he, or anyone else, the guy/gal for everything? Is that even desirable? None of this is snark, nor aimed at pg or any one person in particular. I'm just genuinely baffled that so many thinking people want a few gatekeepers to shape the entire Universe for the rest of us. How about a little diversity of ideas that don't have to be sanctioned by the same three dudes to see the light of day? Investors and other kingdom-key holders are a tiny fraction of the population, yet wield hugely disproportionate economic influence as it is. Do we really want every social problem to be addressed by only the ideas/people they bless? So many here are libertarian or otherwise have a "thing" about centralization of power and control. Yet, they continuously advocate that certain people create their world for them. It's tempting, I suppose, to see this as acceptable when those people seem bright and benevolent. But, in reality, it is still a position that advocates for personal disempowerment and a relatively monolithic society.