Hacker News Reader

Comment by lambdadmitry | Hacker News Reader

Disclaimer: didn't watch the video, read the text.

At least in the text the author seemingly misses an important theme: there is a rising gloom in the Russian techscene lately. Talented programmers are mostly open-minded and keen to the western perspective, so the recent (~2012) turn in Russian politics was (and is) morally hard for a lot of them. All hopes for modernization, "westernization", and brighter future in the next decade were shattered, most startups now look for either government or government-associated funding. Like, the only way the founders of that creepy FindFace startup were going to monetize is to sell it to siloviks. The economic downturn also plays its role.

The future isn't bright around here.

View on HN

It's funny when Western social media synonymizes "modernization", "westernization" and "brighter future".

Especially since it was very recently that huge structural transformations in Russia (Gorby's shock therapy) brought "westernization", "modernization" and a "brighter future" to Russia - in at least all of the US reporting. The shock therapy brought democracy (yes Russians vote) and economic liberalization (yes Russia is Capitalist society). It also broke what had been of an existing soviet union (another thing for the US to cheer about).

This constantly unobtainable quality that the US really would like Russia to achieve is submission to decision making for the world centered in Washington, and until that is achieved according to "western" (sic) reports, Russia will not have modernized, and will not have a brighter future. This kind of exceptionlist rhetoric holds ubiquity over much conversation in the American bubble, but it's pretty embarrassing when you see that it has no clothes.

Russia sees itself as uniquely important to world leadership. So does the United States. Neither is about ready to submit to the other's leadership in world affairs. Prospects for both Americans and Russians in the future are down, and citizens in both countries are being motivated against one another in jingoistic fashion to promote a national sense of unity and legitimacy.

The Chinese, meanwhile, are doing quite well. If they can hurdle some (admittedly big) challenges, they will challenge both Russian and US leadership in the world in a very serious way.

This is a unique and important time in history, in which the three major centers of world power may readjust in their orientation toward one another, and the balance of power may shift in ways hopefully not so techtonic there is another war between major powers (as it would be truly horrific).

>The Chinese, meanwhile, are doing quite well. If they can hurdle some (admittedly big) challenges, they will challenge both Russian and US leadership in the world in a very serious way.

On the other hand, our incoming wildcard of a president seems to be ready to tilt away from China and towards Russia, though what really happens will be impossible to predict. I'm wondering if this rapprochement may come down to both nations' concerns about China.

Watching the US/Russia/China dance over the years has made me think that Orwell was eerily prophetic, even if he didn't get the year right. "But we've always been at war with Eastasia!"

America has been at war with East Asia only since around the 1940s.

But yeah given Orwell was English, they've been at war there for hundreds of years.

So what you are saying is it is good Russia is corrupt, dysfunctional and authoritarian because it helps Putin in his drive to gain superpower status for his country.

Let me add that you look at things this way because, like most Russians, you have a highly win-lose view of international relations.

No you completely missed the point, which is that the US has and does overthrow democracies for National Security and global power ambitions. Authoritarianism is an excuse for US activity and reforms in Russia that would make it more efficient but as strong willed and committed to global leadership would pose a greater - not lesser - challenge to American interests. The same analysis, of course, applies in the other direction.

Repeating propaganda about some eccentricities in the style of governance or opinions about fairness/happiness, be it old Cold War rhetoric or new 21st Century Great Game rhetoric, misses the crucial axis on which state competition functions and inevitably renders resulting commentary/analysis petty and wanting.

There's plenty to read in America about the creepy and corrupt Russians and plenty to read in Russia about the creepy and corrupt Americans.

But if you're wanting to follow the present like someone in the future is going to read a history book, the fairy tail elements, "good and evil", finger and blame pointing, and apologism have to go in favor of a sober realpolitik.

Talented programmers are surely open-minded, but not necessarily pro-western, moving away from millennial bubbles in central parts of megapolises (even the bubbles imagine their pro-Western vector in a very unclear form, which is pretty understandable considering Western discourse is not monotonic at all, so its hard to follow it without a clear definition social media youth lacks generally). About funding, I'm not sure at all, probably it's not much different from 2011, are any links behind the claims?

>not necessarily pro-western

To be honest I don't see how this claim can be compatible with your disagreement on funding. Startups are either SV-style (free market above everything, private VCs, fierce competition) or China-style (heavy government involvement at all stages, from funding to market regulations). So you are either "pro-western" or pro-govt-funded "VC". It is true that there are people with paternalistic view of the government, and all the talk about "import substitution" favors them, but that's exactly the point I was making: the future is gloom here for people with a classic startup culture.

You're mixing a lot of things altogether for unclear purpose. Russian internet was/is awesome about building profitable businesses without VC funding (at early stages of a company life at least). Also, there are many funding models alternative to VCs in 2016. Not to say VCs are different around the globe about their principles(e.g. in Finland most of funding linked with the government but I never heard that Finnish people are not pro-Western), this is not a binary choice. Also, many people in the West do not satisfied with VC model of funding (and that doesn't mean they anti-Western, in some sense many of them are more pro-Western than "startup" people in general), see e.g. "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus" by D. Rushkoff. Sorry for the chaotic reply, but you're raising a lot of concerns at once.

He doesn't miss it, it's right there after the first (mail.ru) block.

Ah, now I see! Sorry for repeating the author then, thought it may be interesting for someone to have a fuller picture. Thank you for the heads up!

Edit: seems someone thought it was sarcastic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (it wasn't)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com