unearthed

1) Chill w the superflous language. Nobody is impressed with how much debt you've saddled over your phd.

2) You cite nothing substantiating these claims.

Leave it to a woke phd to misrepresent a claim to win an argument.

> total freedom happyland

No you dumb fuck.

Im saying that the process of people sorting out a collective, integrated social morality is going to be complex.

Where the fuck did I say it was going to be easy?

> kafkaesque

Yes, its a big deal. How long do you think the british people are going to put up with their daughters being raped and people being stabbed? Do you think that "acceptance" for Khans woke bullshit will continue into perpetuity? Do you think there's some really mean fucking people who are basting in anger + isolation because they've been pushing out of pleasant society?

Does such a thought seem plausible at all? What do you think happens before a coup of any kind? Someone capable sits it isolation + gets really fucking pissed off.

This is the problem with having discussions with arm-chain intellectuals in a space where they can behave with impunity.

You're happy to attempt to win an argument by misrepresenting my claims. The intelligencia of the bay area is absolutely reprehensible -- and I know, I live here with this bullshit.

Fuck, would I love to have these discussions face to face.

> kafkaesque

Lets sit down and get a coffee and chat over this shit and well see which of us is more capably evil.

More than just this though.

Because FBs take is so uninformed, its going to create greater social rifts.

LITERALLY contra to what its stated objectives are.

SO. WHY would zuck do this?

lip service to his employees.

> Assumes FB causes no harm because we've yet to articulate the problems it causes.

Look through my posts in this thread. FB causes shitstorms of damage not the least of which is aggregation / indoctrination of dissention through isolation.

FB is basically pushing monsters outside of its gates in hopes they "go away". They wont. lol.

Also there are legal practices call "punitive damages" so yes there exists legal statutes for punishing things that we determine we dont like.

> Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested and likely necessary.

Here's the thought experiment validating what Im claiming about driving out dissenting views:

Where do the ideas that are pushed out of facebook go?

Do you think they just go away? Absolutely not.

The problems is zuck is culturally beholden to his droves of socially 'woke' employees. Nor does Zuck strike anyone asa persona strong enough to do anything other than 'tow the line' of that narrative.

Socially, hes a lap-dog.

Which is why this 'Supreme Court' is being established. Homeboy cant shoulder the weight (in the court of public-opinion) of the moral judgements being made, so hes throwing $130 million so someone else's name sits at the top of that list.

IMO the only thing this is doing is creating monsters + pushing the work of social integration down the line. Its a bad short-term strategy.

Atop the list of problems here is that facebook loses oversight/engagement w the most dangerous of outside thought-leaders. Inadvertently, putting themselves in the dark.

> You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution

Incorrect. Im saying the solution IS NOT the dogmatic oversight that facebook is pursuing here.

Instead the solution is: "The droves of people using facebook are sufficiently large that an organic zeitgeist can emerge without interference"

Surely You're NOT suggesting:

"Yes we require the dogmatic, bureaucratic, oversight of speech to create harmony"

Yes. Realize that FB is the defacto platform for social discussion and realize that discussion at this scale is the singular path towards cohesive integration of multi-culture societies.

Stop policing speech/thoughts/ideas/communication.

Nobody has asked facebook to be the arbiter of social-morality.

You at facebook are creating an echo chamber and driving dissenting voices away because they dont adhere to the 'woke' dogma.

You're taking all the monstrous ideas and pushing them outside. You're giving them no option but to aggregate + further radicalize each other.

This is why shit like 8chan has gotten so wretched.

Theres already WAY too much involvement + dogmatic oversight of 'moral right' by facebook.

Stop doing what you're doing and accept that if you're ACTUALLY interested in the mass-culture integration you claim you're working towards, banning + policing thoughts aren't the way towards that ends.

What actually needs to happen is for the bad to be extrema to be buffered though interaction w the socially normal beliefs.

What facebook is CURRENTLY doing is radicalizing groups.

Somehow zuck cant see this as the repressive puritanical system that it is.

I know for programmers / coders its a weird question but what about part time?

Right. Im not claiming that it is.

However a trait which is more readily attributed to academic research ( not creating a profitable product ) is more applicable to academic research than to startups.

Per the Thiel quote (summarized):

The history of academic research is riddled with scientists making no profit.

I love git. Literally the only way to be productive when you've got more than 4 people touching code.

Do you guys allow remote work?

Why are Phds so cheap to hire if their skills are so valueable?

> "You don’t need a PhD, but it helps."

> "A PhD is nice because because it demonstrates ..."

An employees willingness + investment to singularly do just one thing for the rest of their life.

It works as really good signaling for a CEO / hiring manager to assess someone as a really consistent employee.

This is the central argument for pursuing a phd.

But its rubbish.

Speed + onus behind learning > everything.

Also note the self-serving bias where Phd's swear:

"You need a phd"

Hire the PHD.

God knows they'll work for 3rd-world labor rates.

> "That's the failure point for most biotech startups -- they dont have a useful application of their tech."

This is precisely the failure of every academic ever. We can examine this through the Theil-lens where they're trying to create a narrative of uniqueness where their research applies + revolutionizes everything ( when it does not ).

But everyone knows this is not the case. This is the central plague of all academic research, that its the pursuit of novel understanding before useful application.

I would argue that this is more a defining characteristic of the current academic pyramid scheme than biotech startups.

Biotech startups dont go out for VC unless they HAVE a market.

Biotech phds go to the NIH regardless of whether theres a market.