As a thought experiment to check your own biases, how do you feel about people like Colin Kaepernick speaking out about police abuses and racism in the justice system?
There are people who made roughly the same argument you're making here- since this individual became rich and famous within the current system, they shouldn't criticize the flaws in the system that have victimized others who they empathize with.
The powerful tend to like the idea of less democratic governments / rigging the game (business) so they win. It's easy, they're not interested in competing in a market (ideas or business) if they can simply cuddle up to a despot and easily get theirs. So we see many line up to take their turn to bend the knee.
There's a weird idea among those on the right in the US where they see business people as somehow having some good insights as far business overall (the market) for the country. But really many of those who gain power are very much not interested in competing / open markets / competition, quite the opposite. They got theirs and for many the inclination is to close the door (market) behind them.
Once merit no longer becomes an effective moat individuals, organizations and entities turn to violence. In the modern world this means cozying up to government who has the monopoly on violence and getting competition regulated away if not in full then at least fractionally with barriers to entry.
I would be unsurprised if over the next 40yr the software industry does the same thing by adopting professional organizations that get themselves written into law the way various other professions have.
I vividly recall a Christmas message from him, which I can't find in the archives, "Merry Fucking Christmas" having to do with his work on Mosaic browser and the lack of adulation shown him for having done so.
"Privilege," whether through one's birth, skin color, past achievements and so on, when it turns to exceptionalism, is the ruination of society here and in the world.
Truly good people use their gifts and achievements to lift others up.
Empty shells seek to cut others down.
"Libertarianism" seems nowadays to mean complete freedom for me, and not for you.
I wonder if a lot of these individuals who try incredibly hard to get more attention and "adulation" at the expense of others or feel under-appreciated just weren't loved very much as children or given much attention. I wonder how much of their behavior comes from a place of insecurity--not feeling that they are enough. Of course this type of behavior is not excusable, especially because humans are able to reason (if they try) and assert some level of control over their actions.
i feel like a broken record, but i cannot recommend enough the book Dark Money by Jane Mayer for a primer on contemporary "big" american libertarianism.
I've come to believe that people rarely change through their life. I can't think of many people neither in personal nor in public life, where I've seen a fundamental change in value system. But people are really good at putting up a persona that they want others to see. It takes a long time to really understand someone and who they really are.
> the combination of DEI and immigration two forms of discrimination that systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America.
What a racist idiot he is. The main problem is the cost of college not “DEI”. He’s not even using the term correctly.
It's not even the cost of college per se, but the cost of credentialing at elite colleges. Everything else that people associate with college ed (not least the educational resources themselves, especially with progress in LLM's) is dirt cheap and often free.
Maybe other people's usage of the term is just different than yours without either being "correct".
For at least half of America, "DEI" means "giving preferential treatment to some individuals based on their race, sexuality or gender".
That might be a good thing (at a societal level it balances historical racism, or it counteracts unconscious bias or other contemporary inequalities) or that might be a bad thing (it's unfair to the individuals, it harms trust in the system and undermines meritocracy, visible attributes are a weak proxy to actual privilege) but that doesn't mean using the term the same way as hundreds of millions of other speakers is incorrect.
I feel he's a poster child of what happens when you consume too much social media. Blaming immigration for cutting off access to corporate america for Americans ? I really want to know what the numbers are and what they would be if immigration is completely stopped. Hopefully someone will come up with a simulation for this sort of thing so we can put the debate to rest. Its weird that this data-driven guy have no actual data to back up his claim.
Do your own research. Look at the CEOs throughout tech. It's hard to find CEOs with parents who were born in the United States. Many of the CEOs themselves were born overseas and they came to America either as children of grad students or as grad students themselves.
This is just an extension of the H1B or immigration debate. Bringing smart people to America may be nice for society, but it's tough for the natives who must compete against them. Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.
I really do sympathize with American students who must compete at a global level while sustaining some of the highest tuition burdens in the world. Having said that, the argument that the founders are from abroad hence the natives suffer is false dichotomy. If anything it creates more jobs here and deprives other areas of talent since the US is welcoming for businesses. But if you want to do RnD in America, you almost always have to hire locally. The only pathway for immigrants getting jobs here is to get a degree in the US. These immigrants pay full fees to universities which in turn (potentially) subsidizes education for US students. I have to really stretch it to say that European countries like France / Germany and the UK are as locked up as the US. Almost no other country has stricter immigration than the US. Tbf if the UK (eg) would fix some of their regulatory regimes, the only reason for good entrepreneurs from the UK to come to the US would be to get market share.
I have personally found Marc's takes refreshing and vital. HN, like many sites, has become more cynical and even self-loathing. There are so many in here who hate tech and even progress and growth.
Marc's descriptions in the link are validated even just by the comments here. It's incredible.
Marc decided to support Trump when the Biden admin told him that he shouldn't start AI companies because they were committed to an oligarchy of AI companies and they would classify math if they had to. Now the left is turning all their propaganda firepower on him.
>There are so many in here who hate tech and even progress and growth.
I think you are confusing skeptics of currently fashionable development roadmaps for popular technology with luddites.
As an example, I am a strong proponent of efforts to establish a multi-planetary society and at the same time believe that the future of humanity should have as many humans 'in the loop' as possible. This makes the technology underlying self-driving vehicles beneficial but the push to automate everyday human transport anathema. Other examples are collaborative robotics versus black-box manufacturing technology or global/system wide communications networks. Collaborative robotics allow for advanced manufacturing but can allow humans to retain their mastery of a craft and keep a hand in the process, enhancing rather than replacing. Communication networks, indispensable as they are, need not be a vehicle for exploiting weaknesses in the human psyche to hijack the human experience.
Perhaps I speak only for myself but I think there are quite a few members of this forum who hold similar opinions despite having deep knowledge of the subject matter and appreciating the technology at the core of the 'cutting edge'.
I doubt people like Marc andreessen has much stable long term core beliefs, they are just opportunist who also occasionally feel the need to justify their opportunistic behavior.
They parrot QAnon conspiracy theories and known Russian propaganda originated on RT, call consumer protections fascism (!!!), and allude to actual ideas from fascism as being "interesting."
Just listen to that interview to see how morally corrupt they've become.
I am a turbolib who hates Andreessen but I think the progressive media outlets have been somewhat misinterpreting his leaked messages there. I didn't read it as racist Trumpist white nationalist rhetoric but as specific commentary about race-based preferences in admissions combined with immigration.
When an article on a site called Liberal Currents starts making Marxism-adjacent arguments about disproportionate profit compared to contributions, I have to scratch my head about what the hell is happening.
While I don't agree with much of what Andreesen has said in recent years, I will say that given his central complaint is that Democrat elites have gone nuts, writing an article like this really doesn't help.
From the hyperbolic tech oligarchs slur, as if any of them have anything close to the power of an actual historical oligarch (a member of the Thirty Tyrants was the law, judge, jury and executioner) or even that of Russian "oligarchs" when the term was first applied to them, to the charge of treason, a crime that carries a penalty of death, and the promise of revenge - this whole article reads as unhinged.
Unlike Andreesen though, I can't pretend that Republicans haven't gone well past nuts.
Him, Thiel, Musk, Yarvin and all the yes men (e/acc for example) can piss right off. It's just about power based on the idea that they deserve success and power because they are better than anyone else. That there was no random chance. That they have insights no one else has, that they are infallible. "Paperbelt on fire" is a good example of this thinking ("their education sucks, ours is better"). Absolutely not capable of self-critique these people (totally not musk shadow banning people who criticize him). Destroying democracy and our world because they have the self regulation of a ten year old. Everyone of those people really should go to therapy to learn that making money and having power is not the path towards a good life in any way. And it's sad to see people never get out of this groove their entire lives, no matter the money.
I'm wondering if the "old silicon valley" was also just about power and never about making the world a better place. Was it all just a bunch of narcissists with domination fantasies or did anyone actually care at all?
PS: doesn't help that the opposition is a bunch of cat girl avatars with funny pronouns.
41 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] threadThere are people who made roughly the same argument you're making here- since this individual became rich and famous within the current system, they shouldn't criticize the flaws in the system that have victimized others who they empathize with.
https://archive.ph/lhknB
Link to NYT article:
https://archive.ph/rVUAf
its so fulfilling to know someone as rich and powerful as Andreessen has acknowledged my hard work :)
There's a weird idea among those on the right in the US where they see business people as somehow having some good insights as far business overall (the market) for the country. But really many of those who gain power are very much not interested in competing / open markets / competition, quite the opposite. They got theirs and for many the inclination is to close the door (market) behind them.
Once merit no longer becomes an effective moat individuals, organizations and entities turn to violence. In the modern world this means cozying up to government who has the monopoly on violence and getting competition regulated away if not in full then at least fractionally with barriers to entry.
I would be unsurprised if over the next 40yr the software industry does the same thing by adopting professional organizations that get themselves written into law the way various other professions have.
"Privilege," whether through one's birth, skin color, past achievements and so on, when it turns to exceptionalism, is the ruination of society here and in the world.
Truly good people use their gifts and achievements to lift others up.
Empty shells seek to cut others down.
"Libertarianism" seems nowadays to mean complete freedom for me, and not for you.
graphic (postimages.org)
https://i.postimg.cc/YqFrtzXg/Four-Libertarian-Freedoms-1.jp...
Just look at how the free speech warriors from a couple years ago have changed their tune.
What a racist idiot he is. The main problem is the cost of college not “DEI”. He’s not even using the term correctly.
The comedian Bill Burr made some jokes about the Mangione situation and people on Twitter said it was because of his DEI wife.
For at least half of America, "DEI" means "giving preferential treatment to some individuals based on their race, sexuality or gender".
That might be a good thing (at a societal level it balances historical racism, or it counteracts unconscious bias or other contemporary inequalities) or that might be a bad thing (it's unfair to the individuals, it harms trust in the system and undermines meritocracy, visible attributes are a weak proxy to actual privilege) but that doesn't mean using the term the same way as hundreds of millions of other speakers is incorrect.
This is just an extension of the H1B or immigration debate. Bringing smart people to America may be nice for society, but it's tough for the natives who must compete against them. Moreover, many of the nativeborn don't have the same opportunities overseas. Many other countries are locked up very tightly.
Marc's descriptions in the link are validated even just by the comments here. It's incredible.
I think you are confusing skeptics of currently fashionable development roadmaps for popular technology with luddites.
As an example, I am a strong proponent of efforts to establish a multi-planetary society and at the same time believe that the future of humanity should have as many humans 'in the loop' as possible. This makes the technology underlying self-driving vehicles beneficial but the push to automate everyday human transport anathema. Other examples are collaborative robotics versus black-box manufacturing technology or global/system wide communications networks. Collaborative robotics allow for advanced manufacturing but can allow humans to retain their mastery of a craft and keep a hand in the process, enhancing rather than replacing. Communication networks, indispensable as they are, need not be a vehicle for exploiting weaknesses in the human psyche to hijack the human experience.
Perhaps I speak only for myself but I think there are quite a few members of this forum who hold similar opinions despite having deep knowledge of the subject matter and appreciating the technology at the core of the 'cutting edge'.
They parrot QAnon conspiracy theories and known Russian propaganda originated on RT, call consumer protections fascism (!!!), and allude to actual ideas from fascism as being "interesting."
Just listen to that interview to see how morally corrupt they've become.
While I don't agree with much of what Andreesen has said in recent years, I will say that given his central complaint is that Democrat elites have gone nuts, writing an article like this really doesn't help.
From the hyperbolic tech oligarchs slur, as if any of them have anything close to the power of an actual historical oligarch (a member of the Thirty Tyrants was the law, judge, jury and executioner) or even that of Russian "oligarchs" when the term was first applied to them, to the charge of treason, a crime that carries a penalty of death, and the promise of revenge - this whole article reads as unhinged.
Unlike Andreesen though, I can't pretend that Republicans haven't gone well past nuts.
I'm wondering if the "old silicon valley" was also just about power and never about making the world a better place. Was it all just a bunch of narcissists with domination fantasies or did anyone actually care at all?
PS: doesn't help that the opposition is a bunch of cat girl avatars with funny pronouns.