Hacker News Reader

Everyone thinks they make the world a better place.

The problem is this is such a useless metric and so vague that they are probably right - for some subset of users.

If whatever you are building makes 1 or 2 people's lives easier or a process more efficient, or someone a little happier by using it, then you can say that you legitimately made their world a better place.

Problem is the "making the world a better place" mantra brings to mind things like vaccines and the dishwasher etc... not a mobile library for Haskell which makes 20,000 software developer's lives slightly easier. So I am against the phrase in general because it signals a global reach, while realizing it might be true locally.

For myself, I'd love to make the world a better place. I'd also love to have the resources to do it. I could skip the bit where I need resources and go directly to applying an extra human's worth of work to problems that have successfully resisted many human's worth of work... or I could gather resources and bring much more than just me to bear.

Right now? Apps are a decent way to gather resources.

via Michael Crawford1[1]:

When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners.

As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occassions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well.

I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years," reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.

    John J. Chapman, 
    Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=MichaelCrawford

Tell me, then. Is it better to speak out, to be utterly ineffectual, to be of no aid whatsoever to those whom you wish to help in your principled stand... or to take a chance on being able to actually have an impact?

It seems to be that the world is already overfull with the principled, loud, and ineffectual. I see many people who adhere to Mr. Chapman's advice, and all their efforts amount to naught.

That is a straw man. You define speaking out and having an impact as mutually exclusive. Speaking out with integrity and principle always has impact. But the world is overfull with loud UN-principled people taking stands. Few walk the talk. Cognitive dissonance and self-serving excuses win. We lack the courage or the will to sacrifice for the good of others. So things stay the same, or get worse. Until it gets so bad that even the reluctant finally act, usually out of selfishness.

Take a stand on something you see as wrong, and walk the talk. Today, not tomorrow. No excuses.

You assume I have not done so. Friend, you assume incorrectly. I have. I learned from the experience. I spoke out with passion, principle, and integrity. I joined my voice to those of similar others. I accepted no excuses and did as you demand. I acted with courage, I sacrificed, I acted selflessly for the good of others.

The world remained unmoved. And I... I gained in wisdom.

Speaking out with integrity and principle has impact to the extent that you have the ability to translate your beliefs into realty. The world has no lack of people with principles and integrity who don't agree with you. They are all also attempting to make impacts. The ones most likely to be successful and get the impact they want are the ones with the resources to back it up.

Remember - people who disagree with you are often loud, brave, and principled people willing to sacrifice who believe they are doing the right thing.

If I could sacrifice the screaming passions of every marcher in Berkeley, every Black Panther in Oakland, and every OWS camper for another Gates Foundation... I would do so in a heartbeat. Because the result would be dramatically improved lives for a great many people as resources are expended less on principled posturing by people with integrity and more towards actually doing things.

So, friend, let us dispense with the Naming of Names and Taking of Stands. Let us get on with the bit where we actually do things that help people. That is, after all, what matters.

> If I could sacrifice the screaming passions of every marcher in Berkeley, every Black Panther in Oakland, and every OWS camper for another Gates Foundation

And I the opposite. The Gates Foundation is built on ill-gotten gains, the kind of abuse of power that makes the world the bad place it is. The marchers in Berkeley (my alma mater), the Black Panthers and OWS all had profound impacts on the social conversation and psyche. Would you trade Selma for The Gates Foundation too?

That you felt the world remained unmoved by your earlier efforts hints at the kind of arrogance or desire to play god that the current internet tech world is criticized for. Doing the right thing must be done because it is right, not because you get personal satisfaction or glory (or profit). Doesn't sound like you gained the wisdom that you believe you did. You probably don't get my points about integrity and walking the talk, that those "most people" you refer to aren't actually waling it. Certainly not Bill Gates.

Maybe you'll not get anything I'm saying.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

Maybe I won't get anything. That would, in real, practical terms of lives improved, put me on par with OWS. I could do worse for company. But maybe I'll get the Gates Foundation, which uses its morally tainted power-dervied money to save lives around the world. Orders of magnitude more lives than OWS.

(I had a paragraph here remarking on the differences in accomplishment between OWS and the Gates Foundation as I see them. I have removed it, because it is distinctly unkind.)

Consider, friend, the possibility that I understand every single one of your points. Consider the possibility that I understand your criticisms. Consider that I understand the accusations of arrogance, moral duplicity, corruption. Consider that perhaps I do understand what you mean about integrity and walking the talk.

Consider, then, the possibility that I might understand you, your points, and your positions. And still honestly disagree.

Please. Just consider the mere possibility.

You continue to assume rather arrogantly that OWS has not had an impact that has or will ultimately improve lives. Not all impact is immediately tangible. Adding qualifications such as "practical" is begging the question.

You continue to assume that Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation together (you cannot separate one from the other) have a net impact on the world that is positive and that is greater than OWS.

"Lives saved" is not the only metric, and is not even the best metric. What good is saving a life if that life is consigned to suffering, or worse, effective slavery at the hands of capitalist-fuedalism? Most people who have tasted freedom would rather die fighting than live long as a slave. And even if a good metric, what if the greed and relentlessly accumulating power of the capitalist system that both produced and is produced by Microsoft is the reason Africa, India and the rest of the third world is in the sorry state it is in, and so the underlying reason for the deaths?

Please, can you consider the mere possibility that your assumptions are wrong, and the truth that your arguments are logically fallacious, relying on straw men, circular reasoning and begging the question. You have failed to answer any of my specific critiques of your claims, and present opinion as incontrovertible fact.

> You continue to assume rather arrogantly that OWS has not had an impact that has or will ultimately improve lives. Not all impact is immediately tangible. Adding qualifications such as "practical" is begging the question.

No. I assert that looking at results delivered to date, the Gates Foundation has delivered more than OWS has. If history and logic cannot be used as meaningful predictors, then this whole discussion is pointless.

> Please, can you consider the mere possibility that your assumptions are wrong, and the truth that your arguments are logically fallacious, relying on straw men, circular reasoning and begging the question. You have failed to answer any of my specific critiques of your claims, and present opinion as incontrovertible fact.

I have. In fact, I lived as you urge. You dismiss this, as it did not produce the results you anticipate, so therefore I clearly did it wrong.

A clear pattern has emerged. I have seen this sort of reasoning before. I wish you good luck with your new religious avocation. Good day.

I agree whole heartedly. I too often find those claims pretentious. Small percentage of startups actually do it, while vast majority of them just want to make $s and make their life better. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, except their claims. The random guy contributing 100$ to Nepal relief fund ends up more genuine.

Very little substance? I dunno... what would you have liked to learn? What questions are left unanswered? Maybe I just don't know all that much about Marc Anderson but I thought it was interesting insight into the person.

How about something that reflects the title? My insight into Marc is that he is very much a history buff and relates all investments and conversations to a historical perspective. His rant on Carl Icahn was structured Icahn 1990 vs Icahn 2010, for example.

Plus, I want greater analysis on his psychology. I am able to gather his analysis on investments that first he draws the big ideal picture of the future and then backs anyone going towards that future.

"This is a huge waste of potential."

That is the point that is often lost. I think this everytime I see someone who actually went to school and has a degree in something "serious" (with job security) throwing that away to do a startup idea. Shark Tank even had this. Robert Herjavec egging on a "board certified dental surgeon" to leave his career (was on "Beyond the Tank") to be able to sell (what started out as) Christmas sweaters. [1] The Dentist making a point that it was a tough decision because he had spent 10 difficult years going through Dental school and other training.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/tipsy-elves-shark-tank-succes...

Fuck that.

There are companies every day trying to genuinely make the world a better place, like the healthcare IT one that I work for, trying to open up a Steam-like platform to do signal processing in hospitals. Or the not one but two charity fundraising startups bootstrapping in my city. Or the test-grading automation startup in Dallas.

And yet, because these companies aren't within walking distance of the Valley VCs, and because they are sometimes tackling industry problems that take more than a year to close a basic deal on (seriously, fuck hospital invoicing and billing), they have enormous trouble getting out of the valley of startup death because no funding available that permits easy growth. And because the local VCs in these cities are looking for easy deals, they just fly over for their day trips to the coast, and ignore what's in their own backyards.

So, for fuck's sake, let's not complain about the developers who are trying to eke out a living--let's instead take a long, hard look at the market and society that rewards them, and understand that that is the root of the problem.

EDIT: Minor clarification in paragraph two.

Making a living, as I wrote, is perfectly acceptable. I am not opposed to this.

You are right. It's the society and the market that rewards such situations. The ugly sweater startup makes millions but the charity fundraising you mentioned will probably fail. Because one would prefer to look out of fashionly grandma-like cool (?) than help someone else. It's a problem of education in the broad sense, and I don't know, overcoming our natural impulses for egoism, greed and fear ? Sound like clichés but I belive they are at the heart of our problems as a whole.

> let's not complain about the developers who are trying to eke out a living

You make it sound like developers are not one of the privileged classes in this world, that they can't make money easier and accumulate more of it with less physical, psychological and emotional degradation than the vast majority of the world. That they might "only" be in the top 10% instead of the top 1% does not make it less true.

No one in the top 10% has any business complaining except about the condition of the bottom 50%, and then they should be doing something about it, as 7_7 suggests.

with less physical, psychological and emotional degradation than the vast majority of the world.

I think you're incorrect about this. I think you aren't counting the mental and emotional toll of working on projects that get arbitrarily shitcanned, or working 120-hour weeks because you think you'll be the king of the roach bucket because your investors said so, or the constant dehumanization of "You are programmer beep boop why can't you just make this business concept work?".

As far as physical hardship, look at all the folks with carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, diabetes, bad backs from slouching, or any of the other issues endemic to white-collar long-hour development work.

And for all that, we're still probably just going to be me, complaining about the working conditions and things that suck, and you, dismissing those same issues because some Kazak iron worker works in a dangerous foundry. This is stupid.

No one in the top 10% has any business complaining except about the condition of the bottom 50%,

See, this line of thinking expands easily: "Nobody in the top 30% has any valid complaint, except..."

Suffering is suffering. Handcuffs are handcuffs, golden or not. Abuse is abuse, whether it is from a shitty founder or a shitty secret policeman. Being underpaid is being underpaid, whether it's by one dollar or a hundred thousand.

Your line only suits the super-rich, and is a great appeal to guilt to help people ignore how much they're getting shafted.

EDIT:

So, again, not a single act of self-abasement or renouncing of privilege is going to do anything to help those truly in need. Face facts: there's not enough room in the clubhouse for everyone, and we don't help ourselves by voluntarily standing outside, unless it's with torches.

> As far as physical hardship, look at all the folks with carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, diabetes, bad backs from slouching, or any of the other issues endemic to white-collar long-hour development work.

These aren't problems inherent in the profession. Not every white-collar worker is fat with diabetes. Plenty of developers find time to work out and take care of themselves, and being part of this 10% affords them the luxury to get a gym membership or buy healthy food.

This is very different than someone who puts in grueling hours of manual labor or makes a wage that puts them below the poverty line, forcing them to eat cheap, unhealthy food every day.

So, it sounds like you don't get a lot of face-time with folks that work in enterprise, or SMB development. You know, places with at least an hour-long commute both ways, where the defacto lunch is something from the local wings joint.

Or, you know, where the folks are so buried in loan and student debt that are effectively below the poverty line, but they just get to claim a nicer cell. They're no more free than your blue-collar folks.

I think the Hedonic Treadmill affects developers very severely, and in large part because of Developer Culture.

If all you do is code and sleep, then your notion of 'stress' is entirely tied up in what it's like to be sitting in front of the monitor.

While that can truly be very stressful, it always seems like the people who don't get as upset at work run, or hike, or swim, or are musicians on the weekend.

For a long time I thought that meant "If you're put together well enough you have energy left on the weekends." but eventually I decided if I waited until I was put together then I'd be infirm at an early age, so I just started doing things.

Now I think it's the people who have extracurricular activities that are more put together than the other way around. They have a more diverse definition for the word 'adversity' and things don't bother them as much.

There needs to be better incentives for solving the ugly problems of the world. It most likely will not come from the private sector because they see too much short-term gain from the Ubers and Snapchats. Otherwise it will not stop.

I wish Gates would get into the SV fray and throw some money around to these problems.

That's not what's stopping the ugly problems of the world from getting fixed.

My last startup was (yet another) attempt to solve unemployment. As we got closer to the problem with our market research, built an initial product, and tried to sell it, we realized that the field is...well, let's call it "fractally fucked up". The job/employment market is a mess of millions of different actors, all of whom are doing the wrong thing because their incentives are perverse, they lack full information, and they wouldn't act on that information because they don't trust it even if they had it. You can't solve this problem by throwing around money, because you have to change behavior and you only change behavior through long-term, deliberate attention on the part of all of the individual actors.

I'd posit that all of the "ugly problems" of this world - unemployment, education, inequality, health care, human rights - result from similar fractally fucked-up systems. It is far, far easier to solve the problem for yourself and a small number of other people than to solve it for everyone. In some cases - like inequality or power dynamics - it's not possible to solve it for everyone, because the definition of the problem changes as you make progress.

This comment is deeply insightful, and "fractally fucked up" is a perfect phrase for this. Both halves are necessary and precise.

I feel like if everyone would absorb your point, it would cut out the most toxic kinds of negative dismissal that we see in these threads—the kind that assume X would be easy, if only Y weren't so stupid or greedy.

I would love to read a blog post with further explanation of what you found out when trying to solve unemployment with your startup.

The amount of creativity and intelligence in the valley is only eclipsed by the narcissism.

I have to borrow that one in the future.

I hardly think the valley holds a monopoly on narcissism as I pretty much see it everywhere in society nowadays.

But with more power to exercise it.

What do you disagree with?

Read the last third of the article.

> I don't like it. This article looks to me like an ad piece. It has very little substance.

If this is true, and given the piece is in the New Yorker, it definitely speaks volumes about how much money AH spends on PR.

I know what you mean, this excerpt in particular makes him seem like someone with a very bitter inferiority complex:

"So he later saw Amazon as a heroic disseminator of knowledge and progress. “Screw the independent bookstores,” he told me. “There weren’t any near where I grew up. There were only ones in college towns. The rest of us could go pound sand.”"

I understand his point, but it seems more like 'I didn't get what I want so fuck you all' rather than something actually productive.

In his experience, independent bookstores only serve a subset of the population. Amazon serves all the population.

If ever there was a good reason to favor Amazon, this seems like one.