The best I can say of this piece is that it made me aware of the existence of this manifesto. I don't think I'll be able to sleep without finding and reading it.
Pretty clear strawman starting at the third paragraph. I'm sure we could dig up many more.
This article is just a snarky rant. Embarassing.
I'll raise a strawman of my own: pretty indicative to see one of the co-authors of the Fascist Manifesto listed in Andreessen's list of "patron saints".
The manifesto starts with this as a defining motif. Growth is life, no-growth is death. Homeostasis be damned!
Techno-Optimists believe that societies, like sharks, grow or die.
We believe growth is progress – leading to vitality, expansion of life, increasing knowledge, higher well being.
We agree with Paul Collier when he says, “Economic growth is not a cure-all, but lack of growth is a kill-all.”
...
Our enemy is corruption, regulatory capture, monopolies, cartels.
It's all in for unlimited growth, unlimited consumption, unlimited population, zero regulation, magic free market will fix things.
You can argue for or against that vision, but you can't claim that the above is not his manifesto.
You may benefit from reading about what straw man arguments are before commenting further.
You also might benefit from further education.
I'd strongly suggest you start with reading the full manifesto and not rely on technical point scoring on the basis of short quotes.
Hint: All I have to do to prove the rebuttal relies on a straw man is to show that it mischaracterized or meaningfully distorts the ideas in the manifesto. I have done that.
That's definitely the model we should be aiming for.
It doesn't actually demonstrate how Marc is wrong about anything, it's sort off thought as a given I suppose.
All it does it just amplifies my general distaste for so called "journalists".
In this case the writer is distorting what Andreesson wrote in order to attack it. Here's an example:
"...it’s part of a broader movement that seeks to take all the guardrails off of technological development and push forward with “progress,” whatever the cost may be."
One thing I can say with almost 100% certainty - even though I have not read the manifesto -- is that Andreesson would never make such a stupid argument. Only an idiot would make such a dumb and absolutist argument, and only a politician or other dishonest person would try to assign such a dumb argument to her ideological opponent.
I've no doubt that readers of gizmodo, big government socialists, and many of their fellow travelers found this piece and it's writer to be a fresh new voice for the deep state and managerial classes. But I'm underwhelmed.
Just go read the damn thing, friend. Sheesh.
I have since read the manifesto and while it was always obvious even without reading the manifesto that the author of this piece distorted it, I can now say for sure that he distorted it.
It's a straw man.
People literally don't read articles anymore. They just upvoted based on the title (and if they agree with it)
Maybe I will write badly on why my project will fail, encouraging rubberneckers...
It'll do a lot better since HN readers now just upvoted based on the title without looking at the article.
Been my observation at least as I've noticed a steady drop in HN quality and more politics BS on the front page.