Conferences
avc.com
avc.com
I really feel that most of conferences are power games and I am just averse to power games. Maybe I am antisocial. But I believe doing the good work first then people will follow it. If luckily people likes it and adopt it, it is wonderful recognition. If unfortunately no one likes it, then I have to do it again with a twist keep experimenting. But whether recognition is bestowed, I do things because I like what I am doing. Life is never easy and it should be never easy.
And the cool people are always outsiders, no matter in tech or arts.
I guess hackers and programmers are quited used to doing this over the web, though.
Conferences aren't so much about the presentations as what happens after the presentations.
Of course, this guy is a VC, and he's not so interested in the technical scene. He also seems to be talking about invitation only conferences, which are slightly silly.
50% of the value is the content of the talks, which supposedly described the latest and greatest.
Just like in academia, the talks are actually dated: they have been prepared months before and don't really represent the latest. To know the latest, you need to chat with various people to find out what they are working on right now, that they can't quite announce yet.
What's on stage is canned, in a sense. If you want to be in, you got to be there in person to catch where the future is.
This has held true for me both in academia (research) and web 2.0.
You do need a way to gather interesting people in one place, but you don't need a traditional conference (especially an expensive conference) to do so.
There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means.
Nerds are supposed to be on the side of the good guys.
The people at the HN weekly meeting didn't choose to get together with each other, the rich guys who gave them money chose them and told them to be there.
In contrast, superhappydevhouse is open to anyone who shows up.
As superhappydevhouse has grown in popularity and size, this has made finding venues more difficult, we've been extremely fortunate and have had many generous people open their homes and businesses to us.
The "dilution" issue that mellis mentions above has also been a concern, fortunately this hasn't been a difficult issue to address. All that we've needed to do so far is to explicitly state what sort of event we are holding ("A party for hackers and thinkers") as well as discouraging corporate self-promotion and recruiting.
Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy.
What's ironic is that a) many of the people at the top started out at the bottom and earned their way to the top, and b) those at the bottom are ultimately trying to cultivate the same things: wealth and connections.
I find it incredibly naive to think that we're at some turning point in history where suddenly the world is going to become some kind of meritocracy and the people who are just starting out will behave any differently once they make it than people have been behaving forever. I also find it humorous that you think that people at the top are basically just dumb, boring people who lack vision and talent, and who have only their inherited wealth and connections to keep them on top. Give me a break.
Is that a reason to dismiss? This may be a stumble on an idea that Marx would agree with, but noone is asking you to accept marxism wholesale.
'Sounds suspiciously like..', is a defensive way of thinking. It's wanting to know who's side you are on so you know what position to hold. It's almost like being afraid of being persuaded by argument.
It's not that simple. There are people who have both wealth/connections and talent. There are good guys who are well-connected and wealthy.
The moral battleground is the exchange rate between these two fundamental commodities. Talent should trade very high against property, but often it doesn't. The good guys are those who are trying to make the exchange rate proper; the bad guys believe the talented exist only to serve those who are already powerful. So powerful people who use their resources to advance those who are talented are among the good guys.
Also, can you provide some objective basis for the statement that talent should trade very high against "property"?
Those who want the reverse are those who have power but lack talent, and their supporters.
One way to do so is to let people trade their talent for property that they use as they see fit. If they're good and not just lucky, they'll succeed again, getting more property over which to make decisions.
However, that method seems to be in conflict with "talent should trade highly against property".
> They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.
That's bullshit on stilts.
Claiming an idea is invalid because it "sounds suspiciously like (Marxism/Communism/Socialism/etc)" is an ad hominem. It's flawed thinking, a logical fallacy. When you do it, you're not effectively supporting your argument you're just revealing your own intellectual shallowness.
that's just my opinion, and if you disagree, fine. but don't have a knee jerk reaction and assume that because I labelled something Marxist means I'm intellectually shallow.
OK, but your reasoning is still flawed.
There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work)
If unbannable had used those ideas to underpin his arguments, attacking Marxism would make sense. But he doesn't. He just (sort of) shares one of Marx's observations & moral dispositions. Not everything that Marx claimed, observed, said or saw is disproved. To the extend that Marxism is disproved, it is the political or economic systems.
The same tactic is used by anti-evolutionists trying to draw a connection to Nazism.
This is a close cousin of a straw man. Straw man is a shallow argument.
Classic sour grapes. Poor guy. In his universe the power fairies just wander around granting power to dolts. Meanwhile untapped capability just sits around wasted.
Newsflash. Folks with actual useful capability don't stay "propertyless" for long - they produce, which gets them property, which lets them do more, getting them more property, and so on. Yes, there's some luck, but the luckiest people are those who have the moxie to take advantage of the luck that comes their way and they make more.
Yes, some folks are born into money. If they're not capable, they lose it.