Hey HN! I want to hear the arguments as to why this is or isn't a positive development for society. Not whether or not it's the right business decision, or whether or not they should have the right to do it.
Yeah, the tribalism isn't really based on party lines so much. Identity politics has gained primary importance, perhaps in part because of social media.
Remember, we just elected a black man who was the head of the Harvard Law Review. Whatever you think about him, he did not succeed because of know-nothingism. We have bifurcated in some ways, but there's still a lot to be excited about!
I used it at work last summer, and it was fine-- did everything you'd expect it to, etc. I found that I missed my Mac for a few reasons, but those seem to be mostly idiosyncratic.
If I understand correctly, he's guessing that pitch discrimination is finer at lower frequencies, so tuning at 432Hz would allow our ears to be more 'exact'. Of course, this advantage would be negligible, and pitch discrimination decreases past a certain point. The songwriter intended their piece to be heard by human ears at A=440Hz, knowing the various propensities of human hearing at various levels.
Or it's a stand against a movement which opposes their moral principles. To Pao (and, to the extent that it matters, me), D. Trump's movement is so vile that any prominent supporters of it waive their right to being tolerated. I am sure you'd agree that doing so would be acceptable if Thiel supported Strom Thurmond, Viktor Orban, or Mao Zedong; it's just a matter of how bad D. Trump is.
I'd like to know your perspective of the explicit amorality of the SV "quirky-elite", especially the YC-Facebook nexus. To me, Altman, Zuckerberg, and Thiel all very obviously have ulterior scifi motives (live forever, solve the question they think underlies existence, etc) predicated upon a sort of über anthropic principle, i.e., "I'm one in a million so there is a special underlying meaning to my life."
I'm only guessing this from afar. Do you think I'm on base with this, or is their issue just hubris?
I agree, up to the point where we are so certain about a freedom that we decide it is not worth having. Say, the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the freeway.
You make a good point: regulation is a clumsy tool, and I don't think it needs to be applied here. However, I'm disappointed in what seem to be the fundamental motivations of Facebook and its board. I'm not sure that anything could come in the way of Mark Zuckerberg's pursuit of maximizing the world's dependence on his product.