1) Moderately successful, but not too successful (my Foo can't compete with Bar)
Actual issue: They use their success to bludgeon competitors to death. E.g. what Microsoft used to do to Linux, which is why we still don't have a viable Linux on desktop even though nearly everyone agrees that they only use Windows 10 because they have to and not because they want to. Plus, now that Microsoft has apparently "done a 180 on open source" (read: we used the bludgeoning time to figure out how to profit from OSS), their success is the equivalent of breaking a sleeping man's knee and handing him a stick to walk, and then patting yourself for your generosity.
2) Run by at most 20 people (why do they need so many people, me and my buddy could do it in a week!)
Actual issue: They don't provide support commensurate to the number of people building it once the project's hype factor goes down. A good example is nearly every not-very-cool-anymore OSS library which was announced with great hype 4 years ago, is not used a lot today, and the employees of the BigCo treat everyone who raises GitHub issues with general disdain and disinterest. Although, to be fair, I think this is the fault of the suckers who go and use this OSS library. As they say "Fool me once..."
3) Maintains all products/features indefinitely even if less then 1% of the users use it (Google killed RSS Reader)
Actual issue: Unlike BigCo, which can kill whatever product they want and not face the smallest problem, the user base of these products in terms of actual usage is so big, it can support a company or two or twenty. People who are investing the time to build on your bloody platform are regularly treated in the same way Mark Z thinks of his user base ("dumb fucks").
4) Directs all earnings back into the product (they have so much money, surely they can afford to all maintain all products/features indefinitely)
Actual issue: Not actually committing resources to product support.
Here is something which should make you laugh, if it didn't also make you cry in case you are a Google Cloud developer (you cannot remove yourself from a Google Cloud project that someone else added you into):
The issue is marked as priority: P2, severity: S2. Really? And Mr Thomas Kurian wants developers to evangelize Google Cloud when they wouldn't even take care of these kinds of things for over 5 years?
5) Pays below market rates (engineers make too much money)
Actual issue: Hard to say, because on the one hand, they are definitely overpaid with respect to the difference between their actual performance and their own perception of it (for e.g. even the biggest supporters of the tech that comes from BigCo, when pressed, will point out a laundry list of bugs). Not to mention the perennially lousy support on the projects deemed by the engineers as not-sexy-anymore. On the other hand, if some of these folks end up going to jail for things such as trying to manipulate elections (which I firmly believe is a question of when and not if), then you want them to be compensated for that risk.
6) Grows organically with no VC/investor money
Actual issue: Taking investor money is just a neon warning sign today: "expect user hostile behavior in our product very soon". If the vast majority of VC backed companies didn't become user hostile, this wouldn't have been a big issue.
7) Makes no mistakes. All experiments end up being total hits / cash cows forever.
Actual issue: these experiments are often accompanied by extreme hype and overpromising. To be fair, once again, I say "Fool me once..."
Did you notice I finally put most of the blame on the people who trust BigCo, because they repeatedly act like suckers? There is indeed a sucker born every minute, and the surest sign of that is the fact that people are actually signing up for something like Facebook Shops. So the HN crowd is the voice of the skeptic. I actually hope it is never pleased about anything.
"If a man is not a Socialist at 20 be has no heart, but if he remains one at 30 he has no head." I don't know who said this, but this is a great example of how our minds mature.
The probably unintentional ageism in tech has a major, quite literally civilization changing consequence.
We are creating power centers which have too many young people who haven't really thought a lot of things through, certainly not the unintended economic consequences, and who glibly dismiss people who disagree with their premises as some kind of "ism".
Consider the outrageous claim that Tucker Carlson made today (that NYT was "planning" to dox him). Was it true? Did he just cleverly "pre-empt" it? Or did he intentionally create a story to teach a lesson to the NYT reporters?
Things are made much murkier when you then find out that, yes, indeed, he was actually doxxed before once. And people did actually show up to his house to protest. And even more amazingly, the first person account of this "witness" actually makes you believe if Tucker has a point. Why did they go to his house at night? And how can anyone, from the inside of a house, distinguish "firm knocking" vs trying to break down the door. Will you be calm enough and just say "Oh.. I thought he was going to break it. But it was just a firm knock, now that I think about it. Phew.. "? And why in fuck's name would you actually spray paint anything on Tucker's property? He is going to refer to it as vandalism, because if someone came to your house and peed on the front door, that's exactly how you would refer to it too. Or are you instead going to say "Well, it's just some organic material, it can always be wiped off"?
>>I have no idea why they matter at all in the computer science industry.
What is the computer science "industry"? To the extent that such a thing exists, I suppose you are talking about people who have directly made money by creating software (Chamath), or invested in companies which made money (Naval and Balaji). How can any industry exist if no money is ever made?
And whom do you propose people follow instead? :-)
Will people really want this monstrosity around post-pandemic? I hope we can somehow miraculously get back to normal work just as this device enters the market in August, and we will have an epic failure called DTEN ME (which sounds like "detain me") as a cautionary tale.
>>In many contexts, having identity tied to your online profile should make people act more like humans and less like they're role-playing their anonymous internet troll persona.
This is only true if everyone agrees on facts. It is perfectly reasonable for people to get shocked by the other side's views if they do not disagree on the facts. When people are in fundamental disagreement with other viewpoints, I would say their behavior is often one angry message away from the anonymous troll personas. It is a very short fuse.
A good example is the idea of the "cancel culture". Do you think it is a reality? Someone like Stefan Molyneux would say yes. Someone like AoC would say no.
The person who thinks cancel culture is a real thing will say things which just seem completely idiotic to the other side, and vice versa. And they are still using real names.
Using real names in fact becomes a liability if there is actually a cancel culture. So, for example, I am safer making this point anonymously. If I accidentally end up offending you, at least I don't have to worry about losing my job.
It does seem like the poverty line is arbitrary, and it does seem low. Is racism the explanation for every small and large thing?
Where does the article mention the constant money printing which is continuously devaluing currencies all around the world? Does a poverty line even make sense in a world where the currency depreciates quickly? How about measuring the poverty line in terms of currencies which do not depreciate in this way, such as precious metals? Why not mention that all governments all over the world are incentivized to overpromise and underdeliver because they own the money printing press? If a person who is supposed to have a background in economics, such as the author of this post, doesn't even mention this, then what hope is there for the lay person?
1) Moderately successful, but not too successful (my Foo can't compete with Bar)
Actual issue: They use their success to bludgeon competitors to death. E.g. what Microsoft used to do to Linux, which is why we still don't have a viable Linux on desktop even though nearly everyone agrees that they only use Windows 10 because they have to and not because they want to. Plus, now that Microsoft has apparently "done a 180 on open source" (read: we used the bludgeoning time to figure out how to profit from OSS), their success is the equivalent of breaking a sleeping man's knee and handing him a stick to walk, and then patting yourself for your generosity.
2) Run by at most 20 people (why do they need so many people, me and my buddy could do it in a week!)
Actual issue: They don't provide support commensurate to the number of people building it once the project's hype factor goes down. A good example is nearly every not-very-cool-anymore OSS library which was announced with great hype 4 years ago, is not used a lot today, and the employees of the BigCo treat everyone who raises GitHub issues with general disdain and disinterest. Although, to be fair, I think this is the fault of the suckers who go and use this OSS library. As they say "Fool me once..."
3) Maintains all products/features indefinitely even if less then 1% of the users use it (Google killed RSS Reader)
Actual issue: Unlike BigCo, which can kill whatever product they want and not face the smallest problem, the user base of these products in terms of actual usage is so big, it can support a company or two or twenty. People who are investing the time to build on your bloody platform are regularly treated in the same way Mark Z thinks of his user base ("dumb fucks").
4) Directs all earnings back into the product (they have so much money, surely they can afford to all maintain all products/features indefinitely)
Actual issue: Not actually committing resources to product support.
Here is something which should make you laugh, if it didn't also make you cry in case you are a Google Cloud developer (you cannot remove yourself from a Google Cloud project that someone else added you into):
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/35903415
The issue is marked as priority: P2, severity: S2. Really? And Mr Thomas Kurian wants developers to evangelize Google Cloud when they wouldn't even take care of these kinds of things for over 5 years?
5) Pays below market rates (engineers make too much money)
Actual issue: Hard to say, because on the one hand, they are definitely overpaid with respect to the difference between their actual performance and their own perception of it (for e.g. even the biggest supporters of the tech that comes from BigCo, when pressed, will point out a laundry list of bugs). Not to mention the perennially lousy support on the projects deemed by the engineers as not-sexy-anymore. On the other hand, if some of these folks end up going to jail for things such as trying to manipulate elections (which I firmly believe is a question of when and not if), then you want them to be compensated for that risk.
6) Grows organically with no VC/investor money
Actual issue: Taking investor money is just a neon warning sign today: "expect user hostile behavior in our product very soon". If the vast majority of VC backed companies didn't become user hostile, this wouldn't have been a big issue.
7) Makes no mistakes. All experiments end up being total hits / cash cows forever.
Actual issue: these experiments are often accompanied by extreme hype and overpromising. To be fair, once again, I say "Fool me once..."
Did you notice I finally put most of the blame on the people who trust BigCo, because they repeatedly act like suckers? There is indeed a sucker born every minute, and the surest sign of that is the fact that people are actually signing up for something like Facebook Shops. So the HN crowd is the voice of the skeptic. I actually hope it is never pleased about anything.