I think there's still a niche for a Wirecutter-like site. But I don't know what it should look like, and how it should function without invasive affiliate advertising. I like reading high quality reviews of practical goods as well as more specialized things. Right now, I just Google search "name of product" + "reddit" and browse through threads to get a general consensus of a product.
I think you can have affiliate links, you just run the risk of ruining your credibility. I also think it might be difficult if that's your only source of income.
I wonder if anyone has tried giving their top picks away for free, but charging for the review and methodology? I feel like I'd be suckered in. When I'm shopping I hop around and look at a bunch of reviews. I'll then try and find YouTube reviews to see the product in context. Especially, if it's a site that comes up over and over I'd pay to see pros/cons and comparisons. No idea if that would scale to a business, though.
Q: Would you trust, or find useful, thumbs up reviews from people you follow online? Say you could see a collection of stuff people endorse via Twitter/IG, would that be of value to you?
Kind of. The only issue is that I only use Twitter/IG for personal friends and not "influencer" level people.
I think some of kind of organized curation would be nice. For instance, I follow https://fivebooks.com/ a lot, which asks subject matter experts on their recommendation. Something like that for nice consumer goods would be cool.
But wouldn't it be prone to the same co-opting by anyone holding the bigger bag of money like the endorsing that already exists, just adding to the noise of the influencerdom?
"Friends" and average nobodies already turn scummy as soon as RandomCorp throws in some kind of stupid referral incentive. Celebrities and has-beens can't be trusted when addressing consumer goods. Leveraging social media to bridge the gap between them is what brought us influencers.
i feel like "traditional" events for casually connecting and meeting with others have become somehow underrated — things like attending trivia events at a local pub, pick-up sports leagues, book signings, meetup groups, local volunteering orgs, and stuff like that all exist and, post-lockdown in many cities, seem even livelier and more interesting than before, with many people just going out and talking to others with no ulterior motives or expectations of anything else but meeting interesting people
once you're at a physical event, you already have one thing in common with everyone there, which is your presence at the event, and it's really easy to strike up a conversation about something topical and then get to know someone better—the issue with a lot of these apps is that the initial conversation can be awkward or fizzle out quickly if both sides aren't completely engaged, which is often the case anyway
through Zero to One, his other writings, and by developing his own personal history, Thiel has created an alternate will-to-power mythos for those who feel alienated by whatever they believe the prevailing Silicon Valley technology & startup culture is
"do no evil" might have been the contrarian counterpoint in the nascent early to mid 2000's, but now Thiel, and those with similar cultural, social, and political ideals, has chosen "we have chosen sides" — Thiel wants to position himself as someone who is for and against something, anything, where most technology companies have a bland, homogenous corporate neutrality
I don't think his end goal is trying to get his favored political candidates back to office or something — Thiel is cultivating a larger story and seeding his ideas about the act of choosing sides, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that
I don't disagree, but I think there is a lot of nuance to it. Thiel is an ardent disciple of Rene Girard. If people want insight into how Thiel sees the world, I would strongly recommend reading The Straussian Moment. There is a Peter Robinson interview about the essay that can serve as a good primer[1].
Girard and thus Thiel hold that "If there is a normal order in societies, it must be the fruit of an anterior crisis."
They're not wrong that this is A source of order, but they overlook the human tendency to form community and cooperate: this vision of theirs is about how to form societies when they are by definition all against all, a brutal struggle of nihilism and despair.
That's only one way humans can be, and it's a way that competes with the more leftist tendency to make everything about the community and cooperation.
Seems like a meta-narrative is needed that incorporates both of these positions that are held by their supporters as the ONLY position that can exist.
You need to read Girard more closely (I recommend reading Things Hidden...)
Girard does not embrace a Hobbesian view of the world, he is trying to explain the origin of human cooperation and society. The scapegoat narrative is not a nihilistic war of all-against-all it is a narrative of all-against-one to create order. Human cooperation can exist when violence is pared-down to one person (the scapegoat).
Where Girard admits that nihilism can come into play is when the scapegoat narrative becomes openly acknowledged. Which is what he argues Christianity effectively did (opened up the scapegoat mechanism for all to see, thus rendering it ineffective). Girard predicts that our lack of a scapegoat mechanism will likely lead to apocalyptic violence.
Frankly, I think the leftist view that humans can cooperate out-of-the-head-of-Zeus is naive and needs no account, because it has never happened.
Right, except very frequently, the scapegoat isn't a single figure, but rather a group.
The Bourgeoise, the Jews, the QAnons, the Blacks, the Whites, the Immigrants, the Rich, the Anti-Vaxxers, the Catholics, the Muslims, the Kulaks, the <insert group here>
If humanity could unite and create order under the periodic ritual sacrifice of a single King, we'd be much better off than the way it actually happens, which is scapegoating and sacrificing millions of people at once.
Sorry, but all this stuff about the “scapegoat narrative” and so forth is clearly the sort of syncretic pseudo-spiritual voodoo that crops up from time to time.
absolutely — my few sentences is just a rough summary of a small part of Thiel's thinking and ideology
summing his life as a Silicon Valley bad guy is a gross oversimplification — his actions and work is the product of decades of his study and thought, and has evolved in a number of ways over time if you follow his writings and interviews
it's clear that he holds the ideas he's arrived at with conviction, and has been in the process of enacting them through financial or political or intellectual means
As the rosy promises of Silicon Valley flounder and the naked reality of techno-capitalism becomes apparent (hello serfdom, err, gig economy, we've missed ya), it is imperative to find a scapegoat. What better scapegoat than a disciple of Girard?
IMO his intellectualism provides active cover for an autocratic-minded zero-sum sociopathy, which when married to his accumulated wealth represents an existential threat.
This is not irrelevant to the conception of and market of Palantir.
He is the Erik Prince of "tech" and like Prince, is a literal merchant of death.
If true that distinguishes him from nobody, including people without power. However, a serious investigation of Thiel's work dismisses any serious accusation of "Intellectualism" it is well thought out and philosophically rigorous.
Is he completely correct? Probably not. But then, who is?
If one person is an existential threat to humanity (which is what I assume you mean) then, frankly, we probably "deserve" it (in the evolutionary sense). Thiel is useful here to countermand this point. One of his most useful ideas is that the so called "powerful" and "elite" have much less power than we think they do and can can be easily circumvented if ignored (of course there are marginal cases).
I'm pretty sure Thiel is a key Dark Enlightenment guy, which means some specific things. 'will to power' is an adequate description for that larger story, which might involve working through others but might also mean any number of things.
The common thread is a concept of overpeople and UNDERpeople, and an ethos that's completely fine with ruling or even consuming/destroying the underpeople, without guilt or any reservations.
This is an ethos, it's just not western civilization anymore :)
I liked Zero to One, read it twice. I am also a Libertarian (I consider myself to be a very liberal Libertarian, for what’s that is worth).
My complaint about Thiel is that I found it difficult to find much charitable giving on his part. He funds Thiel College, but what else? It is his right to do what he wants, if it is legal, but who wouldn’t feed hundreds of thousands of starving people or many more, etc. if they had lots of surplus cash. Besides being the only political “peace party” of any size in the US, my take on Libertarianism is to respect personal freedom, respect all people who work to support themselves and their families, and to have a strong social consciousness to support making the world as good a place to live in as possible.
> who wouldn’t feed hundreds of thousands of starving people or many more, etc. if they had lots of surplus cash[?]
There are downsides to donating food. One of them is that it damages local farming; another is that it brings more dependent people into the world, duplicating the problem.
My wife and my favorite charity is the Heffer Project that sets families up with, for example, a breeding group of chickens to make money selling eggs and a protein source for their families. Similar projects with larger animals.
A friend and his wife used to (my friend died in a traffic accident) collect money and once a year make a huge buy of practical farming tools, appropriate types of seeds, etc., charter a cargo flight, and deliver to somewhere where their research showed a need and where they were able to make local contacts.
So, I totally understand your point but there are options.
I like to think of myself as a "pragmatic libertarian". My problem with true Libertarianism can be summarized by the idea of fully private roads. There would be no public land - it's all privatized and therefore every road is a toll road. That's a hellscape I can't imagine ever working smoothly. Some collective society problems are best solved via government - as messy as that is. I think America's response to this current pandemic is not exactly a ringing endorsement of libertarianism. Now if you want to quibble and say, "well lots of folks aren't practicing the true responsibility that libertarianism requires" - I agree! And until our society can show that they can exhibit true personal responsibility than I don't want to see what true libertarianism would bring. I once read someone summarizing modern day libertarianism as "anarchy for the rich" - and that's how I've come to see it.
So I say that because while I somewhat understand and respect Thiel's idea's. His vision of America is not one I care to live in at this time. And I wonder if in 100 years will we look back and say, "Thiel was a net positive influence on the human condition and society?" At this rate I'd say no.
Interesting take on how the future might judge Thiel. Definitely there is a place for government, so as you say there is a sort-of Buddhist middle path that mixes personal responsibility and the need for some government services.
I found your phrase “will to power” very fitting. I see Thiel as a modern day descendant of Nietzsche: Re-evaluation of values. Seeking solitude away from the herd. Not competing with the “barkers of the marketplace”. Not succumbing to mimetic impulses. Daring to create the future.
(“Will to Power” got a bad rap. It was published posthumously by Nietzsche’s sister who had ties with the Nazis. But Nietzsche’s concept of “power” has little to do with power over others. What he’s talking about is the power of the maker. Of the one who’s capable not of stealing value from others, but of creating value where none existed before.)
If he wrote so un-clearly that pretty much everyone ever since has interpreted his writings as supporting the Nazis (or rather, I suppose, authoritarian political ideologies in general), he only has himself to blame, hasn't he? I mean, he made his living from writing stuff; he can be expected to be good enough at it to at least get his frigging point across to a majority (or even a plurality) of his readers.
You will understand, if you read him. Those who misunderstand just don’t do that. They read a few paragraphs, or a title, or, better yet, someone else’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s work. And then they “know” what it’s about.
Your definition of a good writer: Someone who gets his point across to a majority of his readers. Well. Isn’t that what we’re seeing today? Clickbait and all of that. It’s all designed to get the point across to the majority of people. If that is your goal, you have to compromise.
Antibiotics, steam engines, cars, airplanes... none of those things would have been understood by the majority of people. The majority of people declared them absurd. In those cases, the ideas succeeded in pulling up the people. In the case of marketing and politics, it’s the majority that succeeds in pulling down the ideas.
> You will understand, if you read him. Those who misunderstand just don’t do that. They read a few paragraphs, or a title, or, better yet, someone else’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s work. And then they “know” what it’s about.
So... all those "someone else’s" whose interpretations everyone else reads got it wrong? And that's because, while Nietzsche was great at writing clearly, they're all just too stupid to get it? William of Ockham disagrees.
> Your definition of a good writer: Someone who gets his point across to a majority of his readers.
Thank you for teaching me what I think, but no: That's certainly not my whole definition of a good writer. But, are you saying it's not a pretty big part of it?
> Well. Isn’t that what we’re seeing today? Clickbait and all of that. It’s all designed to get the point across to the majority of people. If that is your goal, you have to compromise.
What on Earth are you talking about? As in, A) WTF does "clickbait and all of that" have to do with anything?; and B) No, there is no evidence that clickbait is "designed to get the point across to the majority" -- are you claiming clickbait even has a point to get across?
> Antibiotics, steam engines, cars, airplanes... none of those things would have been understood by the majority of people. The majority of people declared them absurd. In those cases, the ideas succeeded in pulling up the people. In the case of marketing and politics, it’s the majority that succeeds in pulling down the ideas.
I can only assume you were rather tired and quite emotional when you wrote this, because it makes no sense and has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.
I personally found 0 to 1 illuminating, but it is harder for me to comment on whether it is part of a larger consciously chosen narrative or some interesting byproduct.
I do find it odd lately that we are experiencing a weird anti-cult of personality writings lately ( anti-Musk, anti-Thiel, anti-Zuckerberg ). Odd because I would normally expect articles and other propaganda glorifying their achievements ala Gates. I am not sure what to attribute this to.
How about the fact that we currently have a global pandemic and most of the rich did ...
Absolutely nothing.
The fact that Dolly Parton actually threw money around is part of the spotlight that demonstrates that these are not good people in spite of their positive PR.
People are just finally realizing that emperor has no clothes.
For the last few years one has seen articles about the good stuff Dolly does, and AFAICR most of it goes back much further in time than when the writings about it began to become common. Seems she, as opposed to most billionaires who look ever more the congenital arseholes, is good people for real.
On Gates, I suppose the jury will be out until well after his death? Personally, I'm totally split on him: Yes, he seems to be doing a real lot of actual good shit with his billions nowadays. But he did amass them by being perhaps the biggest robber baron of the 20th century. (And certainly the biggest -- so far! -- in the IT / "tech" [whatever that means] industry; I guess we'll have to wait until Thiel, Musk, Zuck & al are gone too, before we can assess if any of them surpassed him.)
What is generally known as ethics acts as a safeguard against random individuals running rampant and inflicting tremendous damage on society for personal gain.
In a broad context, Thiel acts like someone who has no such safeguards. The future he's pushing the world towards is the caricatural dystopia from Back To The Future (which was originally meant to lampoon Trump-like characters). Fortunately, he will probably fail.
If you don't see this at all, it's probably time to ask yourself just how similar to Thiel you actually are.
what kind of future do you think Thiel is pushing the world towards?
a lot of his writing involving Girard and other political philosophers reads as studying mimetic desire as a means of avoiding absolute total war in society and maintaining the hegemony of what he believes to be "enlightenment values" — destruction and unnecessary suffering is generally the antithesis of those beliefs
again, I don't even personally have to agree with all his ideas and writings to want to have a discussion about it
Dark Enlightenment thinking isn't far off that Holy Roman Empire. It's essentially an embracing of monarchy and caste, with rule belonging to the Peter Thiels of the world, based on various ways they can demonstrate their ability to claim that throne.
It's fun to learn about the different origins of flower meanings, and how they differ from culture to culture. Ikebana, Japanese flower arrangement, also has an interesting history for those who enjoy learning about the different aesthetic sensibilities, and maybe even try for themselves.
Yes it does. It does it by handwaving relative weakeness without proof or argument by asserting the superiority of "our system", which is liberal democracy.
"Ironically, the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will be China’s biggest obstacle in its race with America. The party’s existential fear of losing control will impel it to maintain a tight grip on the economy, making it less efficient. Giant but ossified state-owned enterprises will continue to waste resources. The CCP’s arbitrary exercise of power—as exemplified by its sweeping crackdown on China’s most successful tech companies, such as Didi and Alibaba—will stifle the innovation and growth of its tech sector more effectively than America’s sanctions."
Doesn't say anything about growth, but does imply the govt structure is inefficient, which doesn't make sense to me. It's certainly MORE efficient.
"China should be able to narrow the gap with America in the 2020s, but its growth will probably slow down in the 2030s, and the prospect of China overtaking America will look increasingly dim. If this is the case, the coming decade might be the most volatile because China’s continuing ascent might make its leaders more reckless and Washington less secure."
Yeah, it doesnt say anything like:
"China will eventually stop growing because it's not a liberal democracy". There's some hand-waving that the CCP (individuals) will be reckless...which is a random claim.
Ossification in name of keeping control is a real threat. For the society to thrive, it needs a bit of breathing space. In the past, even authoritarian states could not control their population too tightly. With contemporary tech, it is all too possible to keep tight tabs on everyone.
I am mostly afraid of Western governments adapting the same attitude in order to (suppress disinformation, eradicate terrorism, punish child porn, choose one or more...)
In that case, China could still win, because Western societies will work even worse under authoritarian yoke. We are not used to muddling through in such conditions. The Chinese are.
Well the op-ed is written by one of the founders of the movement conducting the lawsuit and their attorney, so I guess they wanted something arresting and attention-grabbing. I do hate now this kind of rhetoric style has become the norm though — it's just the perfect type of writing that's easily shared on Twitter/Facebook posts.
How do you stop millions of users on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms from clicking on the link, engaging with the material, leaving likes/dislikes/reactions, and arguing with each other in the comments section? As long as the engagement metrics on our platforms support a style of communication that values polarization and reaction over mild objectivity, this style will propagate itself and continue, as sad as it is.
