Can you define what you find a reprehensible position and break it down for me? I see nothing so far that is outside the bounds of average conversations with people I know.
edit:
<< And you wonder why people don't like you.
I try to keep abreast of US 'mood' in various ways, but that jumped at me. Do you have anything to back up that statement?
What we have here is a refusal to take responsibility for their own wrong actions, instead pointing the finger at Google, incentives, feigned helplessness, everyone else doing it, and it being "the real world".
Fuck that. We can do better, and these are shite excuses for not doing better.
> I see nothing so far that is outside the bounds of average conversations with people I know.
That says a great deal about the quality of people you surround yourself with.
> I try to keep abreast of US 'mood' in various ways, but that jumped at me. Do you have anything to back up that statement?
"In 2015, a Pew poll found 71 percent of the country had a positive view on tech, and 17 a negative one. A 2019 follow-up found only 50 percent had a positive view, with 33 percent having a negative one. A Gallup poll from 2020 put positive views of tech companies at just 46 percent and found that 57 percent of US respondents wanted more regulation. In 2022, Morning Consult found 67 percent of respondents favoring regulation, and agreeing tech’s benefits did not outweigh the power the industry had accrued." - https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/silicon-valley-...
"Silicon Valley also ranked as the least certain confidence-inspirer on the list: Another 24 percent said they were “unsure” how much confidence they had in it, while 49 percent said they had “some or very little.”" - https://tech.co/news/millennials-dont-trust-silicon-valley-2...
Note that the criminal justice system did better in this poll than Silicon Valley. And the group that did the worst was "Corporate America" which just might overlap with some other folks here.
<< Fuck that. We can do better, and these are shite excuses for not doing better.
Ok. Lets say you have carte blanche to make changes. What do you propose as the priority? In other words, what would be the thing to do? I am dead serious. What is a good solution here?
<< That says a great deal about the quality of people you surround yourself with.
I deal with people as they are and not as I would like them to be. We can pretend its all sunshine and puppies, but I am not sure it is, at all, helpful to the conversation. And that includes that kid in the article. But yeah, I talk with everyone. I do my best not to enclose myself in a bubble. Now that is a recipe for an actual disaster down the line.
<< "In 2015..some or very little."
If I were to counter it, I would simply point out that you are attempting to compare apples to oranges. In other words:
"And you wonder why people don't like you." does not equal "respondents wanted more regulation".
I want more regulation ( I actively encourage it ), but the broadbrush stroke 'people don't like you' ( you being very open to interpretation so I left it in quotation marks is not exactly supported by the polls you quoted ) does not apply to me. Do you see a problem with this, lets call it, inaccurate language?
This is also before we get to the 'value' of those polls ( I was never a part of one and, frankly, don't know anyone who was.. so right of the bat, I am not entirely certain the population captured is representative of.. anything really ) and the source (MJ), which is not exactly a non-partisan player.
<< Note that the criminal justice system did better in this poll than Silicon Valley. And the group that did the worst was "Corporate America" which just might overlap with some other folks here.
I chuckled. It really made me question who had time to answer that poll, because I am sure the demographics would be a fascinating study in this case.
<< What we have here is a refusal to take responsibility for their own wrong actions, instead pointing the finger at Google, incentives, feigned helplessness, everyone else doing it, and it being "the real world".
What wrong actions? You did not offer specifics.
It is the real world. People compete with each other for scarce resources just like they did since the beginning of time. Fuck man, be happy that at least there are some rules to that competition. Are there advantages to being rich? Yeah. Is that new? No.
We are barely out of the jungle so best you can do is channel our predilections.
So I go back to my original question:
What is your solution beyond attempting to say 'tech community bad'.
edit/addendum:
What wrong actions? You did not offer specifics.
There is plenty wrong with tech today ( and if you go through my comments, you may even notice a pattern ), but I would like you to offer something beyond generic statements.
On behalf of EY and the Economic Innovation Group, Public Opinion Strategies and GBA Strategies conducted a survey of 1,200 18-34 year olds nationwide. Eight hundred and forty respondents were contacted online and 360 were contacted via cell phone. The survey was conducted June 15-20, 2016, and has a margin of error of + 2.83%.
Do you see anything there makes your analysis somewhat dated?
> Ok. Lets say you have carte blanche to make changes. What do you propose as the priority? In other words, what would be the thing to do? I am dead serious. What is a good solution here?
Gosh, I dunno, hire lower-income people?
You're acting like there's some difficult problem here when there just isn't, and I'm not going to speculate why you think there is. If you think there's something more complicated that needs to be done than putting "Internship in <X> for Low-income Applicant" in the title and describing what you mean by "Low-income" in the description, I'm all ears.
> But yeah, I talk with everyone. I do my best not to enclose myself in a bubble.
Everyone, huh? And you've never heard that people don't like Silicon Valley or corporate types? That seems extraordinarily unlikely that you're very successful in not enclosing yourself in a bubble if you've never encountered anything but uniform positivity. Gallup and Pew seem to have no trouble finding people who don't like tech, but your anecdotal experience is definitely a more representative sample.
> << "In 2015..some or very little."
> If I were to counter it, I would simply point out that you are attempting to compare apples to oranges. "And you wonder why people don't like you." does not equal "respondents wanted more regulation".
If you were to counter it, you'd have to not ignore most of it. My favorite part was where you quoted "respondents wanted more regulation", and ignored the first half of the sentence.
Maybe it's just me, but "having a negative view on tech" seems awfully like they don't like you.
> you being very open to interpretation so I left it in quotation marks is not exactly supported by the polls you quoted
"You" being the tech/corporate/startup culture which is the ostensible target audience of HN users.
> What wrong actions? You did not offer specifics.
Gee, I thought you might have read the article we were talking about before you responded.
Or do you really not see anything wrong with perpetuating income inequality by only providing opportunities to people with already-high income? Could it be that the reason you're nitpicking everything in my post is that you're actually just completely okay with inequality?
> It is the real world. People compete with each other for scarce resources just like they did since the beginning of time. Fuck man, be happy that at least there are some rules to that competition. Are there advantages to being rich? Yeah. Is that new? No.
Ah, so the only problems you're interested in solving are the new ones? Great.
> We are barely out of the jungle so best you can do is channel our predilections.
Feigned helplessness again.
> What is your solution beyond attempting to say 'tech community bad'.
What is your problem beyond attempting to say "it's absolutely impossible to hire poor people"?
> Do you see anything there makes your analysis somewhat dated?
Ah right, 2016, I'm sure all those people are dead by now.
First. I want to offer you some credit. This is a much more substantive response than I anticipated. I still think you are wrong and I will expand on why shortly, but I want to confirm that I am engaging in this conversation in good faith.
<< Gosh, I dunno, hire lower-income people?
See, this is where the problem starts, because your solution depends heavily on actual implementation and introduces its own set of problems so I list those problems in no particular order:
- Who should do that forced hiring ( forced, because if they are not doing it now, it is forced; be as specific as you can )?
- What is the lower-income treshold or is that just a euphemism ( but if it is say, please say so there is no misunderstandings )?
<< You're acting like there's some difficult problem here when there just isn't, and I'm not going to speculate why you think there is.
Are you somehow suggesting it is easy? What was your solution again? Hire everyone below certain income threshold? You don't think it qualifies as difficult?
I am sorry, but that line of thinking I can only qualify as delusional. At best.
<< Everyone, huh? And you've never heard that people don't like Silicon Valley or corporate types?
You would be surprised. You are close on the anger towards CEO-class, but you are off on tech. There is anger man. There is no denying that, but, at least right now, it seems very distributed.
<< If you were to counter it, you'd have to not ignore most of it. My favorite part was where you quoted "respondents wanted more regulation", and ignored the first half of the sentence.
I did not ignore it. I pointed out internal inconsistency and how it affects the presented argument. You chose to present that argument, badly. You want me to respond differently, present me with a better argument.
> What wrong actions? You did not offer specifics.
<< Gee, I thought you might have read the article we were talking about before you responded.
Did I misread you when you wrote the following:
<< What we have here is a refusal to take responsibility for their own wrong actions, instead pointing the finger at Google, incentives, feigned helplessness, everyone else doing it, and it being "the real world".
To me it reads like you direct me to article, but your post suggests your beef is with HN audience. That is ok, but you may want to keep your story straight. It is either article or HN response to it.
And so I repeat? What actions? I read the article. I see no issue beyond kid not getting what he wanted. It happens.
I also read HN comments. I can assure you almost any other place on the net that story would be torn to shreds across partisan lines.
Be grateful that this is still the best place to argue a point.
<< Or do you really not see anything wrong with perpetuating income inequality by only providing opportunities to people with already-high income? Could it be that the reason you're nitpicking everything in my post is that you're actually just completely okay with inequality?
See. You are assuming a whole lot with this fragment. Amusingly, you are assuming wrongly, which should give you an idea about shooting in the dark on this forum. We are all a big herd of cats and that big brush of yours I mentioned in the beginning will not make you friends or converts to your cause. Good argument might. For example, I am not above returning tax rates to WW2 levels, but that is not a conversation for today. There goes your me favoring income inequality theory.
<< Ah, so the only problems you're interested in solving are the new ones? Great.
Sarcasm is easy. Was there anything factually wrong with that statement? Resources are scarce. That is a fact. We are human. That is also a fact.
I explained the situation to you. You chose to nitpick yourself on a tangent. It is your call, but it does not advance this conversation one bit.
<< Feigned helplessness again.
Listen carefully, because here I may actually have something useful for you to hear, if you are willing to listen.
Whoever taught you those words, they are using you. Whoever gave you those talking points, they see you as a useful tool.
It is your life though. It is literally your choice.
<< What is your problem beyond attempting to say "it's absolutely impossible to hire poor people"?
How many? All of them? Some? Which some? Some exclusion criteria will exist. Someone will get sad. Your solution lacks any kind of specificity to seriously address.
Nevertheless, I will try with the limited information you did give me.
It is not impossible, but there are limits. It really is that simple. We can go over those limits if you are willing to engage, but your solution is, well, simplistic and I am being generous.
<< Ah right, 2016, I'm sure all those people are dead by now.
It was practically two presidential cycles ago. Whether they are alive or dead is irrelevant. The question is of 'sentiment'.
Are you really arguing that people's disposition does not change?
Seven year old sentiment report to me means little in a world where we forget what happened a week ago.
edit:
<< And you wonder why people don't like you.
I try to keep abreast of US 'mood' in various ways, but that jumped at me. Do you have anything to back up that statement?