[HN Gopher] Andreessen Horowitz Tech Site Future.com Shuts Down,...
___________________________________________________________________
Andreessen Horowitz Tech Site Future.com Shuts Down, Staff Leave
Author : tosh
Score : 154 points
Date : 2022-12-02 13:30 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.businessinsider.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.businessinsider.com)
| lifefeed wrote:
| Future.com was more PR than news.
|
| It reminds me of Paul Graham's old essay on PR firms, which
| unintentionally(?) contained the best advertisement for the NYT
| I've ever read.
|
| > At the other extreme are publications like the New York Times
| and the Wall Street Journal. Their reporters do go out and find
| their own stories, at least some of the time. They'll listen to
| PR firms, but briefly and skeptically. We managed to get press
| hits in almost every publication we wanted, but we never managed
| to crack the print edition of the Times.
|
| http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| gcanyon wrote:
| That _is_ a hell of a recommendation.
| [deleted]
| joshu wrote:
| i chuckle every time this article comes up, since it was
| originally about me.
| lifefeed wrote:
| You worked at the Schwartz PR firm?
| notfromhere wrote:
| A tech venture capital firm starting a publication to write
| about tech is always going to be PR.
|
| It's not like Future.com was ever going to write a piece about
| an AH company that is bad.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Good riddance. The Future they're selling is not the future I
| (and others) want.
| rob74 wrote:
| https://archive.ph/H0C9n
| borbulon wrote:
| thank you!
| swyx wrote:
| serisously this is my favorite practice on HN. i have hated
| medium and business insider for putting up bullshit paywalls
| for ever
| [deleted]
| throwoutway wrote:
| Never heard of Future.com but I guess he needs to cut costs
| everywhere as he's been losing money betting huge on crypto and
| probably is realizing he is losing money on Adam Neumman too.
| Probably lucky he missed getting scammed on FTX as he supposedly
| could not invest due to being an investor in Coinbase
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/andreessen-horowitz-went-all-in...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/15/business/dealbook/adam-ne...
|
| https://fortune.com/crypto/2022/11/30/andreessen-horowitz-do...
| lumost wrote:
| My suspicion is that Coinbase may not be as solvent as we would
| like either. There have been too many exchange scams to truly
| believe anyone is clean.
|
| We now know that outright market manipulation at a massive
| scale was happening through ftx, there is minimal reason btc
| can't fall back to 2013 levels with such schemes out of the
| picture.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| https://cryptoslate.com/kraken-coinbase-and-gate-io-
| publish-...
|
| https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679788/000162828021.
| ..
|
| Since Coinbase is a publicly traded company and under the
| SEC, it is actually the exchange we probably have the best
| and most accurate info on.
| karp773 wrote:
| Running a publication like future.com costs peanuts. If they
| are pinching pennies like this, a16z must be in big trouble?
| gcanyon wrote:
| It still comes down to cost/benefit -- no matter how small
| the cost monetarily, there's still the
| conceptual/attention/time aspect, and it's always possible
| for the benefit to be so little that the cost isn't
| justified.
| rchaud wrote:
| Not necessarily. Now that Twitter is in friendlier hands,
| they simply may not feel the need to shovel more SEO blogspam
| into the furnace.
| karp773 wrote:
| You are probably right. It does look like a SEO spam site!
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Maybe more along the lines of if your freely accessible
| vanity press gets no readers does that reflect well.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| I'm not sure that's true. Semafor reported that a16z's returns
| were 15x at the beginning of 2022 [1]. Obviously that's
| probably lower now but the reason they were so high is that
| they got inside access to their companies' tokens and dumped
| them on retail before the crash. Crypto has been an upward
| transfer of wealth on an unprecedented scale.
|
| [1] https://www.semafor.com/article/11/16/2022/andreessen-
| passed...
| esotericimpl wrote:
| Chris Dixon and those crooks 100% let retailers hold the bag
| for all the worthless tokens they were able to dump on the
| public.
|
| But still the 15x is surprising to me, then again if its
| based on last years mark to market it makes sense.
|
| Fairly certain all their investments in crypto are going to
| zero though.
| winReInstall wrote:
| Should have invested in Shorts.com
| b0sk wrote:
| Their business model is even more sinister according to
| Nicholas Weaver.
|
| "New A16Z: Securities Fraud as a Business
|
| * Invest in several "blockchain" startups
|
| * Startups issue new tokens promising something, eventually
|
| * These are unlicensed securities and this is blatantly illegal
| in the US, just not enforced by the SEC!
|
| * A16Z gets a ton of these tokens, sells to retail suckers
|
| * Ideally gets listed on Coinbase, but sketchier exchanges will
| do * They did that just now with "APE" token!
|
| * If SEC ever wakes up...
|
| * It is the startups that committed the securities fraud, not
| A16Z! So they are safe with their money!
|
| "
|
| Link: https://su22.cs161.org/assets/lectures/cryptocurrency.pdf
| [deleted]
| h2odragon wrote:
| Better headline: "Private Propaganda Publication Perishes"
|
| Is it news? Dunno. Hopefully the world is a little better off
| with one less dripping teat of commercial bullshit.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Seems like AH is starting to cover their crypto traces.
| lazzlazzlazz wrote:
| Isn't the fact that they've refreshed and renewed
| https://a16zcrypto.com/ and focused less on the general
| https://future.com/ direct evidence to the contrary?
|
| Meta point: isn't it bizarre that people are so eager to draw
| conclusions without any underlying evidence?
| rchaud wrote:
| Don't they have an entirely separate "crypto research" arm?
| eternalban wrote:
| In an ironic turn of the universe we learn that archive.org
| didn't need a blockchain to maintain an authoritative record.
| #goodenough
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| Is an archive.org entry admissible in court? Is there a legal
| precedent for this?
|
| Would it be admissible as evidence of Russian war crimes in
| the Ukraine war for example? Evidence of ear crimes put up on
| social media, taken down because they violate terms of
| service, but still preserved in a way that validates they're
| legitimate.
| bad416f1f5a2 wrote:
| Yes and yes: https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/04/wayback
| _machine_legit...
| eternalban wrote:
| This may help dispel some errant thoughts: Unless there is
| an _authority_ for verifying records made to an immutable,
| authenticated, verified, distributed, bft ledger, multiple
| distinct versions of the same event can be recorded and the
| act and content recorded for posterity. The ledger 's
| guarantees merely cover the boundary of _the act of
| recording_ , but not _the thought that is recorded_.
|
| So, opinions alert:
|
| _Truth_ is not a balance sheet. It is not a mathematical
| object, in its entirety.
|
| Authorities will always be necessary. This will require
| social trust.
|
| Social trust is the natural byproduct of healthy societies
| and its erosion a leading indicator of subsequent demise.
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| I'm a bit confused by what you're saying. It sounds like
| you're implying there's 3 different objects here but then
| you talk about only 2 in your opinion.
| Accuracy/authenticity of the digital content,
| authenticity of the distribution of that content, and the
| interpretation of that content (using external context).
|
| I'd think the first is a mathematical/cryptographically
| solvable problem, assuming you trust (human decision)
| whatever hardware/software generates the content. The 2nd
| is solvable in a decentralized way when the first is
| solved. and the latter is probably always a
| human/societal decision.
|
| But why does the need for social trust impact
| technological solutions to the first two? Especially when
| deep fakes become more and more relevant in society.
| eternalban wrote:
| > you talk about only 2 in your opinion.
|
| Truth, authority, trust. (3)
|
| The first is not mathematical. Any device that relies on
| mathematics at its core will fail to meet the demand of
| "is this true?" (Yes it can sign, authenticate, and
| verify (and store) sequences of 0s and 1s.)
|
| The second is a social phenomena by definition. Authority
| affects the suspension of disbelief. That is [one of] its
| primary function. At best technology can stake a claim to
| subordinate qualities of _reliability of function_ , and
| _fidelity to specifications_. This tech is certified
| implementation of such and such wonderful design. It 's
| an 'authoritative' realization. _There_ is the limit for
| _authority of technology_.
|
| Finally, trust.
|
| Picture this trial in an imaginary 'hate hour' type of
| country. The defendant is a political prisoner.
|
| "Your honor, these facts have been established
| mathematically. Unequivocally, these messages were sent
| and signed by the defendant. This is a proven fact."
|
| "Your honor, they put a gun to my client's privates and
| had him sign that message which he didn't even write with
| his keys."
|
| So on to trust. Continue imagining that you are a "red-
| pilled" citizen of that society watching it on the tubes.
| Now try being blue-pilled and repeat the exercise. What
| technology will rid us of these pesky colored pills?
|
| --
|
| We should not waste resources on solutions that can not
| even theoretically address the critical issues around
| (perceived) truth, authority, and trust, since these are
| ultimately and fundamentally human social issues.
|
| Beyond costs-benefits considerations, a secondary ill
| effect of the blockchain madness here is obfuscating the
| matter just discussed and creating a pervasive errant
| thought in a portion of the lay public that technology
| has obviated the need for authority and trust on certain
| matters, contrary to the actual state of affairs.
|
| p.s. technology should only be _pervasively adopted_ to
| _improve_ the human condition.
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| Do you treat truth and authenticity as the same thing? A
| camera can take and sign a picture while proving it's not
| compromised. That picture is authentic but depending on
| the context the picture is presented in may or may not be
| true.
| bombcar wrote:
| Archive.org will remove content when requested by the
| website owner, and in other cases.
|
| https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-
| som...
| Thorrez wrote:
| But at least they don't modify stuff. What they have you
| can trust to be accurate, but you can't trust it to still
| be there tomorrow.
| bombcar wrote:
| Designing a system that can't be modified is an
| interesting exercise, and potentially could be one of the
| few where a blockchain might actually be useful.
| newbie578 wrote:
| I don't really understand, can someone explain to me what is
| going on in Ben Horowitzs' head? He wrote excellent books, seems
| like a really smart and nice person... And then decides to double
| down on Neumann, and also go in on nfts? What is the thought
| process?
| Mistletoe wrote:
| If you've been through enough cycles, you know what things like
| this mean and it usually means the opposite of what the general
| public thinks. The public will think that it means get out of
| risky tech bets now. Start thinking about getting out of risky
| tech bets when Future.com type sites launch, for VC firms are
| using their media capabilities and unloading their bags.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/15/andreessen-horowitz-goes-i...
|
| June 15, 2021 was a nice time to start thinking about
| restructuring your portfolio.
|
| Conversely I think now is a good time to think the other way. The
| European Central Bank is publishing papers about how Bitcoin
| failed. No one wants to invest in anything risky and wants to
| only buy T-bills. The Nasdaq is down 28.3% YTD. The FED has
| admitted they need to slow rate hikes. Putin is 70 and has
| pancreatic cancer and Parkinson's, in addition to many in his own
| country wanting him dead. No market condition lasts forever.
| helloworld11 wrote:
| >Putin is 70 and has pancreatic cancer and Parkinson's,
|
| I'd definitely love to see a source for that that's half
| credible. I've seen enough reports of bad health and impending
| death for many famous people for many years to take few of them
| seriously without a decent source or good evidence. This
| applies especially when it's someone that lots of people would
| love to see fall off the world stage as soon as possible.
| Wishful thinking turned speculation and all that..
| Mistletoe wrote:
| https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-cancer-surgery-
| claim...
|
| This seems to be a good summary. Of course it is always going
| to be tough to know the truth about the health of such a
| public figure. For me it is enough to believe something is
| definitely amiss, but maybe I'm more optimistic than most.
| melanieb421 wrote:
| :/ it was no First Round Review
| lazzlazzlazz wrote:
| Mind-blowing that comments here believe it's a cost-cutting
| measure as opposed to the result of changes in internal
| priorities.
| warinukraine wrote:
| Lets not get confused by the marketing. These people are peddling
| magic beans.
| Dowwie wrote:
| It's a shame that Future.com didn't pan out. I could care less
| what people like Kara Swisher or anyone at The New York Times [1]
| thinks about technology or the companies changing industries. The
| only people who seem to write are activists.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33456708
| atlgator wrote:
| Would love to see Marc Andreessen go bust. He's the big shill
| behind all the NFT and crypto pumps stealing money from Main
| Street.
| gregdoesit wrote:
| Interesting enough, it was in August that I received a reachout
| for them, where they offered to pay me to write for Future.com
| and also keep my rights and re-publish later. I declined off the
| bat [1], because as I checked the site, the a16z association was
| pretty clear and I personally wanted to avoid being associated
| with the biggest crypto VC investors.
|
| It sounds like those were the last few months when the
| publication was still running. I wonder if they simply struggled
| to find people to write?
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1598666595274051586
| tyingq wrote:
| I wonder how much time they had to spend tweaking the
| announcement language to avoid the obvious irony.
| rchaud wrote:
| > _Launched in June of 2021, it was billed as a buzzy new tech
| publication from prestigious venture capital firm Andreessen
| Horowitz -- and a way to sidestep the legacy media entirely and
| take the message of technological progress directly to readers_.
|
| Ah, the legacy media with their pesky questions. Why can't people
| just accept that Adam Neumann is a visionary, and that pay-to-
| earn crypto games are the future? Guess I'll have to start my own
| paper to set the record straight! /s
|
| Despite the premium domain name (future.com), the site itself
| looks and reads like your typical Medium.com publication.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| Did they start this because Pando (which they were also
| funding) shut down?
| sheepscreek wrote:
| Pando shut-down? That's a shame. They did some decent
| reporting, were my source of truth through my startup days
| (after TechCrunch sold to AOL, and it lost any credibility
| for me).
| [deleted]
| mc32 wrote:
| Yeah, I dunno. Doesn't seem like traditional media were very
| critical of crypto and more often than not tried to ride the
| wave of enthusiasm of each technological new thing. The only
| area traditional media were critical were areas that threatened
| their own existence and then they'd "huff, huff, long form
| journalism, huff huff, investigative journalism" but then we
| see such things as crypto scams and laptop scandals ignored and
| more often than not, if something was counternarrative it was
| labelled "disinformation" whatever it was.
| tough wrote:
| Yeah, let's pretend that the VC coverage and legacy media
| coverage of for example, SBF recent debacle was stellar. Not
| saying VC's will fix this, but someone needs to.
|
| There are good journalists out there, they just have been long
| fired from their news rooms and have accepted that the owners
| of the mass media are in control of the narrative.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they just have been long fired from their news rooms and
| have accepted that the owners of the mass media are in
| control of the narrative_
|
| The only useless stories on FTX I've seen has been through HN
| comments calling them out. The _FT_ , _Bloomberg_ (in
| particular, Matt Levine) and _Journal_ have each called it a
| fraud from the beginning.
| uxp100 wrote:
| Bloomberg has been been pro-crypto, and a friend to SBF in
| particular. Levine writes a great column, but he never
| called FTX a fraud (if you're referring to the podcast
| episode that is well known, they were discussing other
| crypto businesses there, not FTX). In fact he has discussed
| how his basic assumption that SBF was competent and making
| money lead him astray. He didn't consider the possibility
| that their trading strategies didn't continue to work into
| the '20s, even though they were making statements on
| twitter that kinda indicated that they were simply long
| crypto and no longer successful with complex trades.
|
| Levine wrote a whole enjoyable issue of Bloomberg about
| crypto that was moderately bullish! He thinks it's kinda
| neat. That's nowhere near the hype you hear from the
| bitcoin weirdos, but, you know, much more bullish than "a
| scam that should be made illegal," which is also a
| mainstream take.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _wrote a whole enjoyable issue of Bloomberg about
| crypto that was moderately bullish! He thinks it's kinda
| neat_
|
| You may be missing the sarcasm. I think crypto is neat,
| intellectually. I also think it's a scam, and everyone in
| it will lose money and reputation, but I'm not going to
| put one hundred percent confidence in that view.
|
| These are mutually compatible opinions. Read Levine's
| insider trading takes and see if you think he's pro
| insider trading.
| paulgb wrote:
| Matt Levine is an opinion columnist, his job is to give
| commentary rather than to break news. Bloomberg overall
| has been pro-crypto (they have a crypto publication), but
| Levine's tone has always struck me as "finds it
| interesting but pretty skeptical of the real-world
| value".
|
| Here's a link to the (excellent) crypto story you
| mentioned: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-the-
| crypto-story/
| luckylion wrote:
| Or, you know, because the "legacy media" had an order to shit
| on tech and not report neutrally:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 (except SBF, of
| course, they were allowed to praise him)
|
| But no, of course, it was because they had "questions" and
| everything in tech is Adam Neumann and Theranos.
| ak217 wrote:
| Deliver me from thin-skinned billionaires trying to bankroll
| their own sycophant "news media". Just because the NYT (which
| does not represent "legacy media" any more than a16z
| represents the tech industry) had a few editors and reporters
| with illusions of grandeur, doesn't lend any more credibility
| to the money bags people.
|
| I have had a target painted on my back before by someone with
| lots of money because they couldn't take a piece of criticism
| that I had for their company. Do you know how that feels?
| Normalizing retaliatory behavior by rich people (and yes,
| this outfit was part and parcel of a media strategy that
| included that) is destructive to civil society - while what
| the NYT did (though unprofessional) is still a normal aspect
| of a marketplace of ideas.
|
| Compare this behavior with Jeff Bezos. For all his faults, he
| did something infinitely classier. He actually bankrolled a
| news organization that has a global presence and practices
| journalistic excellence - and did not try to meddle in its
| editorial policy beyond that (or if he did, it was so subtle
| as to be imperceptible).
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Four of the top five largest companies are tech companies.
| Tech is arguably the most powerful industry in the world. It
| has a huge impact on almost every aspect of our day-to-day
| lives.
|
| The goal of journalism is to "afflict the comfortable and
| comfort the afflicted", so why should publishers not take a
| critical stance toward some of the most comfortable people in
| the history of humankind?
| luckylion wrote:
| Journalists should always be skeptical of everything, but
| not default to opposition without cause. They shouldn't
| work under orders to paint a certain industry in a negative
| light without regard for what's actually happening,
| especially when there's a conflict of interest as players
| from that industry compete with their companies.
|
| If there's something happening in tech that worthy of
| criticism, criticize it. If there's something worthy of
| praise, praise it. And for the rest: report it. Only
| presenting negative things is about as useful as only
| presenting positive things. But it feels more journalistic,
| "speaking truth to power" and all that. It's not,
| negativity just sells better.
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| Their responsibility is to inform the public about relevant
| current events with
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity and
| to refrain from advocacy.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| This comment would seem a lot more insightful if the legacy
| media wasn't, at this very moment, giving Sam Bankman-Fried a
| wet sloppy one. Where, exactly, are the pesky questions?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I've only seen the negative articles/links. Am I missing the
| media that is still fawning over him?
| satvikpendem wrote:
| The show Silicon Valley is still spot on with their satire. In
| the show there's a media outlet that writes badly about the
| company so they just outright buy the media outlet.
| treis wrote:
| It's remarkable that despite being an avid HN reader this is
| the first time I've heard of future.com. Probably explains why
| they're shutting down.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| However, you have probably seen a few Andreessen Horowitz
| blog shitposts (sorry, this is the appropriate term given the
| bullshit density) about crypto scroll by on HN.
| michaelteter wrote:
| That's exactly what I thought!
| maxbond wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=future.com
|
| A couple of these have significant engagement (one of them
| has 483 comments), but most have 1 or 2 points & 0 comments.
| zinekeller wrote:
| I honestly thought that was Future plc
| (https://www.futureplc.com/;
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_plc), a famous (and
| somewhat-notorious) owner of dozens of publications.
| here4U wrote:
| Chris Dixon just blocked you for reading these comments.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| A16Z gets wrongly categorized as a "VC" company.
|
| I'd argue they are actually a media company, who makes
| investments in what they want to promote.
| nick4780167 wrote:
| If you run the media and investment efforts into a company does
| that make it insider trading?
| flybrand wrote:
| There's precedent for that in illiquid alternatives - several
| publishers had internal investment arms that grew into distinct
| GPs.
| boringg wrote:
| The media side is the sell side the VC side is the buy side.
| You trumpet your companies and people so you have more brand
| around them. Other people buy into those companies and brands
| which increases the value of those items. Rinse and repeat
| until you go to the public markets or found an exit worthwhile.
|
| They realized that buy having strong promotion that increases
| the perceived value of their people, companies and founders. It
| also makes getting LPs easier.
|
| Look to Elon for a core example of this phenom.
|
| Arguing if they are a media company or a VC is irrelevant - it
| serves the same purpose.
| CharlesW wrote:
| It'd sure be interesting to see what they spend on marketing
| and PR vs. other VC firms. Only because I think of their
| product being "successful exits", I lean toward a framing of
| "VC with an emphasis on content and brand marketing".
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| totally agree and know many who recognize exactly that
| we_never_see_it wrote:
| That was my hunch with Clubhouse. Clubhouse would've never got
| the reach if it was not for A16Z hyping them up.
| boringg wrote:
| Probably - Clubhouse had a lot of action before they really
| started hyping them. That failure probably hurts a bit since
| there was a lot of literal time spent speaking on platform
| which I think they truly thought Clubhouse was going to be a
| lasting change. I think the discovery aspect and the spammy,
| vapid conversations on platform once you reached scale tanked
| that product.
|
| That said that if there was an audience for their efforts
| still functionally valuable for the time spent on platform.
| czbond wrote:
| One could argue YC is close to that too. But instead of having
| them in house - their relationships with TechCrunch, HN, etc
| are a broad megaphone to their desired audience.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| I'd say YC is more organic.
|
| A16Z is more direct.
|
| A16Z made investments directly in actual media outlets like
| BuzzFeed, ProductHunt, Future.com, etc.
| meindnoch wrote:
| At least he has a nice domain.
| zhte415 wrote:
| commonwordliteralmeaning.com is very 90s .com boomish, not very
| Future.
| [deleted]
| rchaud wrote:
| which is what you would go for if your goal was to supplant a
| regular media publication.
| ixtli wrote:
| "If i were a coder in my 20s again, i know exactly where i would
| go work right now. what an incredible moment."
| [deleted]
| les_diabolique wrote:
| But now that he's in his 50s, he knows better.
| gcanyon wrote:
| When I was a coder in my 20s, one of my co-workers came back
| from some conference with a glossy flyer for a new game company
| startup. It had a lineup of people in various costumes: cowboy,
| astronaut, soldier. It said something like, "We're looking for
| superstar developers to create the next level in gaming. If
| that's you, come join us."
|
| I sure wish I had paid more attention to that flyer for the
| fledgling Electronic Arts :-)
| tough wrote:
| Lol funny how EA was after 10x developers a while back
| already.
|
| Gaming companies have fame to exploit coders though, probably
| EA stock makes it worth it if you were in it tho
| gcanyon wrote:
| Yep, exactly -- I had life emergencies that somewhat excuse
| my lack of foresight, but I can't help but think my life
| would be _very_ different if I had joined EA back
| in...1982?
| BobbyJo wrote:
| If you're a coder in your 20's and you're not degrading
| yourself for the chance to be in the same room as a wealthy man
| that doesn't care an iota about you or your life, what are you
| even doing? /s
| dang wrote:
| Please don't cross into personal attack on HN.
|
| You may not owe wealthy men better, but you owe this
| community better if you're participating in it. The issue is
| what this sort of bile does to _us_ , in our own community.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| BobbyJo wrote:
| I recognize this as reactionary and low value, and will
| refrain from similar in the future. I fail to see how it is
| a personal attack, though. If you have the time (I know
| you're busy around here), the connection would be
| elucidating. I don't see lampooning a statement another has
| made as a personal attack on that person, especially when
| I'm attacking the content of the statement with no regard
| for its maker.
| dang wrote:
| Asserting what a person "doesn't care about" in order to
| make them look bad strikes me as unduly pejorative and
| therefore an attack.
| ixtli wrote:
| hmmm you seem like the exact sort of chap i'd love to hire!
| plz send resume as well as a signed consent for the doors to
| be locked from the outside while you are inside the
| (mandatory) office!
| npkarnik wrote:
| I'm a coder in my 30s now. But when I was a coder in my 20s,
| FWIW almost all the wealthy (male) investors I interacted
| with were not degrading towards myself and my peers FWIW. And
| the ones that were tended to be in their 20s or early 30s.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| And Gordon Gecko type characters are already pretty rare to
| begin with, especially in the Bay Area.
| p0pcult wrote:
| boc wrote:
| In the Bay it's about "Making the World a Better Place",
| which is the all-important fig leaf to cover up the
| uncouth sin of hypercapitalist greed.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Wish I had the power to upvote more than once.
| nradov wrote:
| Gordon Gekko type behavior is pretty rare around the Bay
| Area _in public_. You 'd be shocked to see how some top
| financiers and executives act in private among peers who
| can (supposedly) be trusted. The mask really comes off,
| especially after a few drinks and some recreational
| pharmaceuticals.
|
| It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Some degree of greediness, and other unattractive
| characteristics, displayed in private is to be expected
| in even the most virtuous figures.
|
| What is unusual however are those who are consistently
| sleazy.
|
| Nobody intelligent spends their time hanging out or
| working with likely backstabbers, if they have any other
| choice.
|
| Which is why I feel confident in my assertion, even
| though I haven't personally inspected every private club
| and office in the region.
| googlryas wrote:
| To be fair, OP said degrading yourself, not that they
| degrade you.
| ixtli wrote:
| i am in my 30s now and in my 20s they were super nice to
| me. its just that in retrospect i see how that was a tactic
| to exploit me. and to be very clear i benefited from my
| relationships with them quite a bit! but a spade is a spade
| and luck had a lot to do with my exits. if i hadn't been so
| lucky they would have _just_ exploited me without there
| being ends to justify the means
| devmunchies wrote:
| > they were super nice to me. its just that in retrospect
| i see how that was a tactic to exploit me
|
| Omg. Then what isn't exploitative?! There's always a bit
| of a selfish motive in developing partnerships or
| friendships even.
|
| This is next level victimization.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| In this thread: HN fails to understand flattery, a
| behavior that features heavily in popular culture with a
| clear record in literature dating back 3,000+ years, and
| a heavily-covered topic in early childhood education
| since time immemorial.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| What part of flattery did they fail to understand?
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Also, it's survivorship bias, to a degree. Being nice is
| just as much tool as being smart, and you can wield it
| with intent that is just as malicious. Truly successful
| people have to wield many tools successfully, it's only
| natural that one of the easiest to master is commonly
| used.
|
| You never know what people's intent is, and you should
| assume the best until proven otherwise, but like you say,
| a spade is a spade, and being nice is useful to the
| people being nice.
| tough wrote:
| Thanks for your reflections, certainly it's important to
| have in mind that VC's are innit for the money, which
| makes the world spin
| halflings wrote:
| +1, the most insulting people I've met were the young
| "entrepreneur" types, not older/accomplished/actually
| wealthy people.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| The older and accomplished ones have nothing to prove and
| have been that way long enough that they've had a chance
| to grow out of old habits.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| I wasn't trying to imply that Musk would do any degrading.
| He does however expect the employees to do it themselves,
| given the working hour expectations and minimal
| consideration for stability he's given Twitter's employees.
|
| I say this as someone who sees nothing wrong with cranking
| out 60+ hour weeks if that's your thing.
| [deleted]
| cxr wrote:
| What does this quote refer to, where does it come from, and
| what message are you trying to convey by republishing it here?
| peanuty1 wrote:
| It's a tweet by Marc Andreessen about Twitter.
| https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1593864520815898626
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Twitter is firing people left and right, then bringing some
| back only to fire them again. Seemingly without direction. The
| only reason I could see Twitter being a good place to go for a
| young coder is the potential to work closely with Musk, as the
| environment, other staff, and problem set are all very unlikely
| to be beneficial for one's knowledge or career. I doubt Musk
| would invest much personal capital in a random young
| programmer, though Im open to being told I'm wrong there, as I
| recognize the media itself has a strong bias against him.
|
| I'm honestly not sure what the basis was when this was posted.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-02 23:02 UTC)