Everyone is so negative, cynical, and bitter on HN now, it's really sad to me. I went through YC in 2012 and I feel like the community here is unrecognizable, the quality of discourse is so low it feels hard to participate.
I'm not cynical, but my relationship with technology has surely become adversarial.
I still remember the days when self-driving cars seemed just around the corner and inevitable. When Google was organizing the world's information and ethically pure. When I trusted software to do the right thing.
But nowadays... Good luck finding any trustworthy megacorp. We've commoditized trust for profits (e.g. from Couchsurfing to AirBnB) and the result is that people became less trusting.
> I still remember the days when self-driving cars seemed just around the corner and inevitable.
Inevitable or not.. I did not consider the other things this would enable. like mass surveillance! I thought it was going to be a relationship between me and my car. I did not realize the relationship was actually me, my car, and the company tracking my every move.
That is how my relationship with tech became adversarial.
I can understand complaining about cynicism, but it's dishonest to pretend it's not coming from a real place. All the complaints people are voicing elsewhere in this thread are true:
- it's true that you will get jack squat if you're employee #4 or later (and in the process you'll work more hours with less job security than at a FAANG)
- it's true that the startup scene has delivered basically nothing of real value to the economy in the last fifteen years: it has all been regulatory arbitrage, intrusive ad-tech, financial engineering, and, of course, shitcoins
- it's true that the people at the top turned out to be amoral psychopaths who practically tripped over themselves to kiss the ring when authoritarianism arrived and their talk about improving the world was hot air
If you're going to complain about the cynicism, you should at least respond to the above instead of pretending it's just grumps wanting to ruin everyone's fun.
Thank you for collecting these here--it's been very heartening for me to see that I'm not the only one around here that sees these kinds of things and finds it difficult to maintain a positive outlook. I appreciate that there are still folks on HN willing to point out stuff like this.
I'll just point out that you're presenting your view of the world and beliefs as if it were based on objective fact. The things you've listed here are all narratives pushed by the media, so I would be understanding that you and many others would feel because of this that they are indeed objective truths, but they are in actuality far from that. Even if these stories are made up of objective facts, they ignore many others which contradict them. For example, I also consider myself grounded in reality and I can think of ways in which these things you've listed as "true" could turn out to be far more complicated.
I like this comic / poem, which I feel captures the essence of what I'm trying to get across here:
Try as I might to live simply, my life tends towards complexity.
My ordered thoughts veer off track, once they turn inward I can't turn back.
The path forward twists and tangles, I lose myself at every angle.
The clear vision I hold inside me, fractures into something far more exciting.
"Jack squat" is still in the millions of dollars for holders of a golden ticket, but it is fundamentally a gamble.
> it's true that the startup scene has delivered basically nothing of real value to the economy in the last fifteen years
"basically" is what Wikipedia calls a weasel word. If you're determined to look at the world through a particular lense, by discarding any points to the contrary, you're basically right. That's not the same as actually being right, but it comes down to attitude and world view. If you believe the world is shit, you can find countless examples of it being shit. Because sometimes it is. If you want to have hope and believe in better, you can find those examples too. Because they're also there. Life isn't a math problem though, so you can't take 100 misery points and combine them with 200 hope points and end up feeling happy.
As far as the people at the "top" being amoral psychopaths. It's the amoral psychopaths who make the most noise. A humble quiet person funding soup kitchens and not talking about it isn't going to ping on anybody's radar. Yeah the psychopaths exist, but so do the helpers.
no one wants to believe they're the grump ruining everyone's fun, but would you take all that emotional effort to go challenge the grumps, who are just going to argue, aren't going to appreciate anything you do, and are just a bunch of cynical unhappy assholes, or would you just go find a different digital lawn? (which may just be one thread over, having fun with the idea of an electrostatic wall)
> "Jack squat" is still in the millions of dollars for holders of a golden ticket, but it is fundamentally a gamble.
I was interviewing with a bunch of mid-stage (series A/B) startups for senior/staff roles. Without exception, every single one offered me so little equity that the only way they'd EQUAL big tech pay was if they hit a slam dunk and became multibillion dollar monsters.
> no one wants to believe they're the grump ruining everyone's fun, but would you take all that emotional effort to go challenge the grumps, who are just going to argue, aren't going to appreciate anything you do, and are just a bunch of cynical unhappy assholes, or would you just go find a different digital lawn?
The situation above was without factoring in dilution and across a few different sub industries. I think it's pretty reasonable to make fun of founders for this.
> Everyone is so negative, cynical, and bitter on HN now
Our profession got hollowed out over the years. Of course the vibes at the bar next to the plant will be down.
> it's really sad to me
There's a thing I've seen on HN a few times over the years, where people expect HN to be like a secret oasis of fun away from the realities of the professional pursuits that brought us together in the first place. Why is that?
the only thing that I've seen growing that I hope is pushed back is the growing number of jokers. I see people posting here like it's reddit or slashdot. it's not, and that's part of what makes it valuable. every joke comment is a loss of signal in the forum.
jokes are great, but unless it's a joke that has some truth squirreled away in it that's worth knowing and well transmitted by the joke, it shouldn't be here. especially on its own. little joke at the end of a long relevant anecdote? great. just replying because you had a moment of wit you'd like to share? think twice and don't, please.
there are plenty of places to be a comedian. I enjoy it myself on more than a few. but I would prefer it not be here.
The promise of technology was different. The stories of engineers at FB making millions in options were still fresh in people's minds. The untapped potential of mobile and SAAS and a dozen other things.
Tech lost its glitter. It is now just another arm of rentier capitalism, not too dissimilar from banks and finance.
I don't think OP actually disagrees, the chest pounding rhetoric is likely because they're covering up something deep inside that's saying "I know this is the right move for Amazon but I'm terrified of what that means for me".
Now you're going tribal in the other direction, "CEO and cofounder at Zentail". Zero effort to actually understand where the other group is coming from, just pointless aggression and condescension.
Our employees average less than 2 days in the office a week and we had remote work before the pandemic. I myself work from home often. Our situation is different than Amazon obviously.
I am living the life of the other group if we're talking about remote workers, I certainly don't think I said anything aggressive or condescending.
I am genuinely confused and alarmed by the rhetoric of your post. It feels beyond personal
> I don't think OP actually disagrees, the chest pounding rhetoric is likely because they're covering up something deep inside that's saying "I know this is the right move for Amazon but I'm terrified of what that means for me".
This is condescending and aggressive. You may not have meant it that way, but it is.
I probably shouldn't have replied to them at all—my comment was absolutely less constructive than I normally strive for—but 'much less substance' implies that there was some substance to the original comment.
This is the entire comment I replied to. What is the substance?
> I don't think OP actually disagrees, the chest pounding rhetoric is likely because they're covering up something deep inside that's saying "I know this is the right move for Amazon but I'm terrified of what that means for me".
Fair enough - happens to the best of us. Regarding the quoted text, what they are communicating in a comically absurd way is that WFH proponents aren't open to an unbiased evaluation of WFH and the company's success. They are just as biased as the bias their accusing their employers of.
I don't know nearly enough to make a firm claim here but I don't think what you're describing sounds like a definitive counter example.
There's a big difference between giving lower level employees creative freedom and letting c level executives have free roam over their domain with little oversight or Founder involvement.
...letting c level executives have free roam over their domain with little oversight or Founder involvement.
I agree with you, I think. pg's point was that "Steve Jobs Mode" is the opposite of founders letting their C-level execs roam free. I don't agree.
I think the improved model is "free roaming managers with lots of transparency and accountability."
"Free roaming" and "no accountability" are a recipe for disaster.
But a CEO/exec/manager who reaches 2, 3, or more levels into their org and gives specific direction is a recipe for mismanagement. It violates the golden rule: don't create a role with two bosses.
> It violates the golden rule: don't create a role with two bosses.
Right, but on the other side, in the military they told us: "You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility." If part of the CEO is to be a manager for the C-suite, then he needs to be able to evaluate how the CxO is behaving as a manager; and that would seem to imply looking 2 or 3 levels down to see what's going on beneath them.
That's not to say the CEO should go around randomly countermanding orders and giving new ones. The CxO can't do their job that way. But it does mean that the CEO should have a clear picture about what's going on, form their own opinions, and either give guidance / constructive criticism or fire where appropriate.
I think another huge factor is that you are making a prediction on the future value of your degree over the next 40-50 years as a 17 year old who is probably more focused on succeeding socially and sexually. You add in the student loans that may or may not be forgiven at some time in the future and the free market is not in play. Same with Healthcare, insurance clouds all free market mechanics.
I'm a huge capitalist and I think we need to be honest about where capitalism isn't working. It's always due to free market mechanics being removed from the equation by layers of obscurity. I don't know the right answer but this shit is not working
A 17 year old focusing on succeeding socially and sexually is still really incentivized to go to college! People have tons of friends and sex at even the nerdiest college.
I've been a student at my local university for 19 years now, most of that part time. Sometimes I end up with degrees, other times not. When I'm taking classes that are either too niche or too hard to be on the easiest path towards a degree, it's fantastic.
But if my wanderings take me in a direction which is on the easiest path to a degree (sometimes necessary because the things I want to take have prerequisites that I'd rather not get waived) it's like I've entered some parallel dimension where I'm the only one who is willing to engage with the content. Like wow these kids are getting nothing out of this besides a grade.
So it sounds like we agree that it's not working, though I suspect we'd disagree about how much capitalism belongs in the solution.
you don't really clarify why people should stop flying, I'll assume it's due to global warming? Personally, I think this is a fantastic idea, to simplify the user experience of flying to make it accessible sounds incredible. Private jets are the ultimate luxury in life that so few have access to today. If it is global warming related, then I think that problem needs to be solved as well, but it's somewhat separate. EVs have become a reality, and there needs to be a lot more work done to solve global warming, not a reason to stop all progress.
I think it's implied that there is some fuzziness in the matching, not precision to the 7th decimal of some objective test or something. That said I agree it certainly isn't a requirement to be similar in specific attributes to get married. Perhaps somewhat common though.
I left it ambiguous on purpose, as equivalent could mean many things, someone at least as accomplished, at least as wealthy, or at least as considerate... the list it goes on. It all depends on what that person is looking for. Seems silly to judge which attributes are important for what is a deeply personal choice with serious life implications.
that makes sense but it still seems like there is an imbalance on expectations.
It reads as they're great and there's not a lot of people as great as they are when in reality it's probably more like the overlap between the set of people they desire and the set of people that desires them is impossibly narrow. This sounds like a tough personal problem that they can 100% work through by looking in the mirror and working on themselves.
I'm too great to ever find someone as great as me is frankly a piss poor attitude and outlook on life and I feel really bad for them to be stuck like that.
Statistically speaking, you're right, but it's still possible (especially in our brave new world) to have standards that can't suffer anymore compromise before losing the meaning of "standard" itself.
You could also simply have bad luck compounding the issue. Stuff any amount of effort or masquerade won't fix, like being a short man (inb4 "I know this small guy that...").
People have free will; market rate is driven by supply, demand and economics of production and revenue. It's similar to people in the US willing to forfeit their financial future to see taylor swift live and the reseller market understanding and exploiting the market dynamics. Are the resellers the problem? or is it inevitable when people value the financial security of the rest of their lives less than seeing taylor for one night?
They do have free will, but large groups of people are at an extreme negotiating disadvantage versus individuals or small groups that can more easily plan and coordinate -- and who happen to control the resources. This is why we need things like unions and government regulations: Not to unbalance things in favor of workers but to help achieve some amount of balance between owners and employees.
Agree that these animators should work to unionize if they want to improve their situation.
But I think for professions like these, the "they have free will" argument is pretty compelling. If they were being exploited in a low-skill, low-status job, where there are few to no alternatives, sure, definitely an industry that needs worker protections. But no one needs to be an animator at a big anime studio to survive. They're there because they want to be, and many/most/(all?) could find gainful employment in an adjacent industry or field where they'd have better pay.
To me it's similar to game development. Game devs famously get paid poorly (compared to other devs) and work under stressful conditions. They don't have to do that. They can get a job as a web developer, or an embedded developer, or... some other kind of developer, and get paid more, and experience less stress. But they want to build games, so that's what they do.
I'd definitely support all these folks if they wanted to unionize. But I'm not sure I'm convinced legislation is warranted. (Well, except for strengthening and actually enforcing sanctions against union-busting efforts.)
> They're there because they want to be, and many/most/(all?) could find gainful employment in an adjacent industry or field where they'd have better pay.
This isn't actually true. Occasionally animators can pivot to UI or graphic design, for example, but often times not. Animation is fairly specialized.
NBA players work at extremely desirable jobs and make a minimum of, like, $1m per year. And yet they're unionized and have the right to advocate for themselves collectively.
There's no "but their job is cool and they could do something else" caveat that makes someone less worthy of professional advocacy.
This is a false equivalence because there are a limited set of NBA players. Sure lots of people play basketball, but NBA players have gotten to that upper echelon for a variety of reasons such as training, genetics, perseverance, etc. It's simply not the same.
There is a surplus of game developers and animators and a league like the NBA for game dev doesn't exist (unless you count working for Valve or other prestigious organizations "the NBA of game development").
> But no one needs to be an animator at a big anime studio to survive.
The problem is mostly in the small studio space, where a lot of them are freelancers. There are a few studios like KyoAni/PA Works/ufotable that use mostly their own employees and pay better.
Free will as an individual means that you should be able to make better choices for yourself without having to rely on a hypothetical mafia-style union
Unfortunately, the other side of the negotiating table either already has a mafia-style cartel pushing your wages down[0], or is a monopsony already. Consolidation in one industry means everyone who does business with them either consolidates or has their margins go negative. Unions are just the working-class equivalent.
As for "mafia-style"... I mean, are we calling Hayao Miyazaki a mob boss now?
[0] Remember back in 2010 when Steve Jobs and Larry Page formed a wage fixing cartel?
While I personally believe in so-called super determinism (really just determinism), an obvious implication is that we don't have a choice in whether we believe in anything, or how we react to anything. Therefore, to the extent that you're able to make a choice about how to behave given that knowledge (which is to say, not at all), you'd might as well choose to behave as if you are able to make choices. Then if you're wrong about free will, you don't act erroneously. If you're right, you never had the option to choose how to act on that belief anyway.
I rarely comment on the illusion of free will because doing so often results in individuals spouting the same anti-intellectual drivel and canned responses that fail to highlight the main point. They would likely need to pause and read my comment multiple times to realize they are behaving like uneducated individuals over a belief unsupported by evidence. Additionally, they seldom exhibit such behavior when reflecting on how they decide upon something or consider factors influencing their decisions on a particular subject. Nevertheless, I still believe it is worthwhile to engage in discussions claiming free will when it is brought up in debates concerning societal issues. This pattern has persisted throughout history, where humans have previously held misconceptions about various topics.
Maybe not free will in philosophical terms as we are all programmed in some way or another by our parents, our education, our environment, etc... but we certainly have enough amount of Free Will to change jobs...
Economics doesn't use "free well" to model labor markets, but it does have search costs and monopsonies. You can't wait for the ideal job to appear because you might starve first.
I think I am fairly aware (see profile) and yet most people dont live paycheck to paycheck. the idea that most working class people are just one step away from being thrown in the streets is just a crazy delusion.
Homelessness, medical care, and access to food are absolutely significant issues in developed countries. Particularly the compounding effects - if you miss one rent payment, no one will rent you another location, jobs won't hire you with poor credit, and suddenly you're not able to get out of you situation. Particularly in America where nearly a quarter of people have medical debt: https://www.lendingtree.com/personal/medical-debt-statistics...
