Hacker News Reader

Comment by 100721 | Hacker News Reader

I think it'd be good to keep in mind that Hacker News is mostly populated by a demographic commonly referred to as "Tech Bros" who, for the most part, are here as part of their journey in creating profitable businesses.

View on HN

Profitable (very) was Thomas Midgley Jr. when he introduced lead petrol for cars, it took 75-100 years til the «profit» was stopped. What did we learn?

Is that the definition of tech bros? I thought tech bros were people who shilled cryptocurrencies, NFTs and other grifts.

The definition of “Tech bros” is “tech people you don’t like”. There’s no agreed upon definition (just like how people disagree about what is/isn’t a “grift”) because it’s not meant to be descriptive, it’s a rhetorical device.

Saying we don't like someone because we deem them to be a tech bro, is indeed a circular argument.

But saying we don't like someone that calls themself a tech bro? Well they had it coming.

No, this is too dismissive. There was a large shift in the culture of people over the last decade or so as the bay area money printers started printing faster than finance firms were printing. Eg tech money attracted a culture of people wed normally label “finance bros”. Patrick Bateman types but without the explicit murder. Status, money, often born outstandingly privileged.

This is the tech bro people speak of. It is that psychopathic desire for status at all costs which sadly is learned, emulated, and exalted. Ironically, yc is the poster child for breeding this culture over the last 8 or so years and the place it is most often complained about outside of reddit ofc.

That’s how you use the term because you don’t like those people.

I’ve heard people use the term to disparage Linus Torvalds and even Aaron Swartz because they didn’t like them.

Using tech bro on Torvalds is well outside the pattern of usage I’ve seen, which trends more towards GP’s definition, at least in the past 5 years.

No, it's tech people you don't like for a specific set of reasons: it's mostly hubris and its implications like downplaying the damage the tech does to society and environment.

perceived downplaying of the damage. Popular soundbites (including "don't solve social problems with technology") have it generally backwards, and most people don't go beyond them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com