Hm, I paused for a second before using that word. Did I use it wrong?
1,406 karma · joined August 18, 2012
Edit: Sam just posted https://twitter.com/sama/status/787794988855812096.
> For that matter, it's disingenuous of you to point to an individual's tweets denouncing Trump, then to the fact that his organization hasn't done the same, and call it a lack of moral courage.
YC has multiple partners, and for them to disavow Thiel as a whole would require them to conspire, behind Thiel's back, to reach an agreement on this. That seems iffy. Is it really not enough that Sam has individually come out against Trump? Is it really moral incoherence that he hasn't rallied his entire organization behind him on this?
I do wonder whether female and Muslim YC founders ever receive advice from Thiel, and how they feel about it. But I suspect most accept that he's a smart guy, and that at the end of the day, they can part ways in disagreement but a few pieces of good advice richer. Or maybe not. I'd be interested in hearing about someone's experience here.
If you're saying Sam should come out and say he disagrees with Thiel, he's already said he finds Trump repugnant. Are you saying that in addition to this, he also has to say, "I now draw attention to the fact that by opposing Trump, I am hereby disagreeing with my partner who supports him"? Why? And could it possibly also be because YC has other people in it, and disavowing a partner of YC by himself would be acting irresponsibly toward his partners?
If you're saying YC as an institution should disavow Thiel's actions, is every company expected to choose a political stance, then disavow any partners who act against it? For that matter, it's disingenuous of you to point to an individual's tweets denouncing Trump, then to the fact that his organization hasn't done the same, and call it a lack of moral courage.
It's also disingenuous to suggest, as you do in your tweets where you warn women and Muslims against joining YC, that because one of their partners donated to Trump and spoke at his convention, YC as an institution is now somehow poisoned with the views typical of a Trump supporter. Presumably Thiel was added as a partner for the simple reason that he is a valuable source of advice for startups. He can still be one as a keynote speaker for Trump. Besides, most people who endorse candidates, even people who act as keynote speakers, don't agree completely with their candidate, which further weakens your argument.
Finally, I sometimes read your tweets, and I noticed you tweeted https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/787756601281085440 to Paul Graham's wife. Your usual sense of humor becomes weirdly aggressive when you write about YC, like you really want to pick a fight. What's your problem with them?
I'd like a serious answer to this, actually: why does this matter?
I don't have any affiliation with them. I just always thought trading stocks was schleppily difficult, and was delighted to discover it was not so. I believe some company will do well; I'm not interested in understanding spreadsheets or hiring anyone; here's my money; how do I buy shares? What is the Uber-like, magic-button product here? Robinhood, it turns out.
> At first, saying “no” to fund-raisers and coffees brought with it a keen, almost illicit pleasure. What freedom! I started slipping out of meetings and school assemblies at the first possible moment instead of staying to chat. On one delicious occasion, I sat in my car and read a book while my children attended a family-oriented athletic function.
seem like perfectly reasonable behavior? I couldn't care less if someone I knew did this. I had no idea saying no to coffee was rude.
Presumably, if you break one of these rules, e.g. by saying no to some big gathering, you'll be offending someone. This would seem to suggest that there are people out there industriously keeping track of who fails to show up to gatherings and holding it against them. Really? Here, at the end of a century that saw the perfection of human flight, two world wars, and ongoing efforts to make us a multiplanetary species?
If not dragging myself out to spend several hours making small talk is rude, can I just be rude?
I don't know if this is true of the history of philosophy (or if it's a meaningful indictment of these philosophers), but I can't help but be reminded of it when I see strenuous efforts being made to bucket various phenomena, and human ones at that. What are we going to do with these categories? Not to put too fine a point on it, these things are complex. Any differentiating scheme simple enough will be insufficient to be the basis of any important decision, and any sophisticated enough won't be neat enough for us to be talking about it like this.
I say this as someone who spent more years than I'd care to admit obsessed with MBTI. Wow, look, there are all these different people with their strengths and weaknesses. I even get a cool framework—a stack—to aid me in psychoanalysis. And then of course you have Socionics, which shamelessly tries, using just sixteen categories, to produce a catalog of human interaction. I am not saying it isn't fun.
Actually, MBTI did help me in one way: by showing me how diverse humans are. In my most advanced, intelligent state, I'm still not going to get along with or be compelling to all of them. That was an important idea for me growing up, and still is.
But beyond that, and running the risk of sounding unsophisticated: who cares?
> Simply demilitarizing disagreement can go a long way toward reducing the kinds of friction that prevent people from learning and growing when they're wrong.
Here's my attempt at reconciliation. I would support all of the following: withholding hostility; understanding that understanding something is not the same as condoning it; having empathy for everyone; understanding that everyone has their own reason for how they are; and making atmospheres seem less threatening to encourage more people to come forward.
But I remain slightly suspicious of the feeling of sympathy toward the world view described in the article. Empathy, certainly. But I still say it's condescending to pity someone like that before they've taken the slightest steps toward self-correction.
The woman was unable herself to have children, so she latches onto the view that those who are able but choose termination are unethical killers. She manufactures further rationalization: "it's not right to go out and sleep with whoever, then just vacuum away the result like it never happened." This is just word salad. She openly throws out, "it's just not right! it's just wrong!" like that's somehow sufficient. Her view is driven by a preadolescent's petulant self-absorption and she takes no responsibility for self-correction.
I reject wholesale the idea that personal suffering gives people an excuse, a warrant, to hold petty, juvenile views that inhibit the freedom of others. Life itself consists largely of suffering. People who insist on throwing an eight year old's intellectual tantrum don't need the megaphone they're already given.
If the author's merely saying that open listening and compassion, in and of themselves, are valuable, then certainly: it's important to be open to foreign views. But petulant self-absorption isn't a view. It's not a window into any meaningful aspect of the universe. It's outright condescending to extend it sympathy.
But that's just my second point. MOOCs are a substantial service built on top of the free internet. Surely that costs money? And surely the fact that MOOCs are increasingly charging for stuff (and taking measures to make sure users pay) is not a sign that "social fairness" is deteriorating, but simply the usual costs of building anything at all?
It seems to me that it's actually the internet that improves accessibility and fairness, through which curated collections of study materials are then delivered as MOOCs. Which is terrific, but then it's hardly shocking that they'd eventually have to monetize themselves. We've seen worse attempts to crack down on the internet.
That's kind of interesting, now that I think about it. I wonder if in other languages I'd prefer coding in one color but with all errors and open brackets in red. Does anyone know something like this for Vim?
I don't agree, but I could imagine feeling this way in another universe.
Breaking into a computer system is like criticizing someone's ideas, not breaking into a house. Since anyone can trivially break into a house, we judge people by their intent, and thus authorities are trained to wonder "why was he doing that at all?" Whereas with computers malice is taken for granted and security has to be by design.
Most people understand that criticism does you a favor. Maybe we should explain that security systems are like public debates, and that successful hackers just happened to say something first.
The original announcement said:
At the end of the month, we'll rank the startups and YC will fund two. The ranking will depend both on upvotes and on the quality of discussion, similar to how the ranking of stories works. We can talk about this in the comments, but to answer one question I know will come up: Upvotes are an important factor but they're too brittle to rely on exclusively; doing so would encourage the wrong kind of trying to game the system. So we're going to gauge community interest both by upvotes and comments, and in case of doubt I'll make the final call—or better, figure out a way to put the final call to the community.
All this says is that (a) upvotes and comments will be used to rank the startups, and that (b) YC will then fund two. It doesn't say they'll use the ranking as the sole criteria. It seems obvious that an organization giving away bags of $20k will exercise some kind of discretion beforehand.
Basically you tried gaming the system, with your fanbase who voted for you despite your comments like "I will go through YC like a bowling ball," and now you're protesting that YC won't let you. You don't even like YC. May I ask, out of curiosity, why you're doing this?
The author seems to be suggesting that because everyone thinks their behavior is universal and objective, one cannot justifiably make this claim, and that every objective thrust must necessarily have emotional underpinnings. Maybe; but Fry never tries to invalidate others' feelings. Those offended tend to.