Slashdot Mirror
145 Tech Leaders Say 'Trump Would Be A Disaster For Innovation' (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via CNN: "We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation," wrote 145 technology leaders in an open letter Medium post published Thursday. Some of the leaders are from tech giants like Google, Facebook and Apple, others from small startups, venture capital firms, nonprofits and universities. "We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field. Donald Trump does not," reads the letter, which was signed by well-known names like Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak, Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield, IAC's Barry Diller, Reddit's Alexis Ohanian and Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales. "His reckless disregard for our legal and political institutions threatens to upend what attracts companies to start and scale in America. He risks distorting markets, reducing exports, and slowing job creation," reads the letter, published by chief marketing officer at Color Genomics and former VP at Twitter Katie Jacobs Stanton. Moreover, Trump has shown "poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works," they wrote, citing his proposal to "shut down" parts of the Internet and the fact that he has revoked reporters' press credentials. "We stand against Donald Trump's divisive candidacy," the letter concludes. "We embrace an optimistic vision for a more inclusive country, where American innovation continues to fuel opportunity, prosperity and leadership." Meanwhile, Jon Swartz writes from USA Today that "If there was any lingering doubt as to tech's favored presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton put an end to that Tuesday with a tech plan that reads like a Silicon Valley wish list."
Translation: Trump would do something about importing cheap H-1B workers while Her Majesty wouldn't.
So Zuckerberg and other tech billionaires are on board.
Also, how is she going to roll out high speed internet to every household in America? Seems like a clueless and empty promise.
I'm not a Trump fan but I get the impression that many who like him believe he isn't bought and paid for like Hillary probably is. If they are right, it makes sense that these guys wouldn't want to lose their investment and have someone elected that isn't beholden to them.
No surprise here. Their ox is going to get gored.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Well now, I'm beginning to see him in a different light.
Remember, those are all the same tech giants who lied and said Americans don't have the qualifications so they need more H1-bs and they need to offshore to India. And some of them said that programmers over 30 don't get it.
So, they are just trying to protect their billions by convincing us peons that our interests are the same as theirs. Fuck'em - all of them!
And the word 'innovation' coming out their mouths is just insulting. Most of them are just goddamn advertising companies and makers of shiny toys. Gimme a fucking break. The last innovation that came out of Silicon Valley was routers/Cisco. Yep, everything since then has been consumer grade crap and just the reinvention of the wheel.
Those people need to get a dictionary and look at Hewlett and Packard's history - THOSE guys were innovators and THEY are MY benchmark.
Anyway, all the Silicon Valley people are just arrogant dicks with huge amount of self-importance and entitlement.
The tech executives just want to keep the gravy train of cheap, captive H-1B visa holders. I have been a Democrat all my life, donated many times to President Obama--and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. Hillary Clinton is the first Democratic presidential candidate in my life that I cannot support. I am senior enough in my field to have never had my personal job touched by an H-1B visa holder. (They are dishonest morons.) The way it's run, the entire H-1B visa program is a scam. So, I will be voting for Dr. Jill Stein. I will be damned if I will vote for Clinton. I've done that enough. She supports rich tech billionaires--not me--and I will return the favor. I would rather suffer through 4 years of Donald Trump instead of allowing Hillary Clinton to screw us.
What about the distaste trump would be for human rights?
Trump openly supports torturing non-citizens without even a trial to make sure they are guilty of anything.
Trump supports killing the innocent family members of terrorists (this while claiming to be Christian even though the bible specifically forbids killing family members of criminals).
Knowing these two facts, which Trump has proclaimed and stated repeatedly .. How can anyone support Trump? You would have to be evil.
>> We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity
Translation: We prefer a corrupt government so we can get an endless supply of H1B visas to replace all our US workers with cheap foreign labor.
It's amazing how I wasn't even fooled for a fraction of a second about what they really meant.
As a tech worker who lives on paychecks rather than dividends, I couldn't give half a fuck about their huge margins or their eternally climbing share price. I'm sure that a lot of the C-levels will weep and gnash their teeth if they have to pay me an extra 10 20 or even 50 percent salary but how in a million years does this hurt me?
And no, I know it won't result in unemployment because I know that my work generates millions of dollars a year in ROI (summarizing here but I automate the jobs of insurance adjusters, call center employees and the like). My salary is a tiny fraction of the value I provide. There's an enormous amount of money on the table here. We're talking about companies employing thousands of employees and generating billions in profit. All the unlimited visa abuse does is put more of it in the pockets of C-levels, shareholders and the banks.
And frankly, fuck them. I have never wanted to vote republican so much in my life. All the right people are recoiling in horror at Trump. Know someone by their enemies indeed.
Her staff removing "Secret" from them, meant that there were no secrets in her emails?
It was the only email account she used as Secretary of State and she got no "Secret" information?
I guess BHO was keeping her OUT of the loop.
Which is worse, lying about getting info or being so clueless that nobody sends her info?
This is another CIA stunt on CIAdot. 145 tech who?
How can they even fucking speak of innovation when they can't discuss the public debt?
The sub-prime mortgage crisis and all the bailouts are cookie fucking monster compared to the situation right now.
So what this article story bullshit lies composition whatever you call it.. implies is go Hillary. Well, Hillary is stupid as fuck and you can't command a military (Commander in Chief) if you can't charge your iPad without asking in email from your home server/state dept. server. She did that. Search for that email.
The CIA pipe dream is have to have a woman, a total puppet, with enough subsequent discord that their brainstorms are not questioned. Total dickhead story. CIAdot fuck your mamas.
Sincerely, dead giveaway.
I don't get the hate on Trump.
Really? Despite the fact that he clearly and deliberately goes out of his way to spew as much controversial vitriol as he possibly can?
I have no idea what you meant.
'Trump has not yet promised to maximise the protection of our position and profits, Which, of course, Hillary has done!'
I hope everyone is enjoying this episode of dumb and dumber. thank god its just a tv sitcom... oh, wait..
The President does not control H-1B. Congress does.
The President DOES control the INTERPRETATION and the ENFORCEMENT of the rules - including choosing to avoid enforcing them.
When the laws are not enforced, businessmen who follow the law are at a severe competitive disadvantage to those who violate them. In a highly competitive market this quickly shakes out so that there are two categories of businessmen:
- Those who violate the law and get all the contracts.
- Those who don't violate the law, don't win any contracts, and are now out of business.
We saw that up close and personally when we did some home improvement a few years back. We couldn't find ANY contractors whose line workers weren't illegal aliens.
(We discovered this in the case of, and had it explained by, our siding contractor,. We went to take photographs of the added wiring in the walls when the siding was off, and all his workers became very upset that cameras were in use.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So, not voting for either of the two major parties, huh?
It's 1860 all over again.
Filthy rich racist plantation owners are outraged that a Republican is going to deprive them of their cheap labor force.
Watch out. In 1860, the plantation owners went crazy and declared an actual war after the Republican was elected. They conned all the poor southern whites into thinking that the enslavement of blacks was in thier best interests and that the fight was about "states' rights" (which IS a legitimate constitutional principle) but the only "State's Right" the plantation owners were concerned with was the one that was not a right: the right to own cheap slaves. Poor southern whites were concerned with their actual rights, but were so completely propagandized by the plantation owners and their newspapers that even to this day 150 years later thier descendants still stupidly think their ancestors were fighting for their own personal rights. Tradgic and Sad really. The new plantation owners are using Asians and Hispanics instead of Blacks, but they are still as racist as ever (oh, lots of WORDS about "tolerance", but still ACTUAL cheap labor of poor ethinc groups), and our society will pay for this evil for many decades to come, just as we've been paying for the earlier slavery.
The super-rich who get richer on the backs of slaves will generally stop at nothing to get richer, owning slaves after all is proof that, all pretenses aside, they have no morals. They also tend to be very good at convincing stupid poor free men to support them with vague promises that they too are getting some sort of spill-over benefit from the slavery. These silicon valley snakes will, no doubt, convince a bunch of stupid hicks that they will lose something if Apple has to bring work back to the USA. iPhone addicts will probably be most-easily convinved to help Tim Cook and his buddies make billions more for themselves while evading taxes. They'll even convice morons that Apple is on "their side" with a bunch of left-wing talk about "fair share" and "income inequality" - as Apple takes maximum advantage of cheap foreign labor, thus maximizing wage inequality and stuffing wads of cash into the pockets of all the liberal politicians who've been given Apple stock...
Clearly Trump is rough around the edges. He is not a politician. Yet people hate him for what he says, rather than hate the politicians for what they do. Politicians lie, but the people are used to that. Someone who is angry like you and me, is not fit for government? I contend then you are not fit to vote.
Get over it and go for change, maybe the professional politicians will get the clue if Trump wins. We can always vote him out, and congress has demonstrated that it able to effectively halt all legislation. How much damage can Trump do?
"You have to vote for one of them"
You absolutely do not have to and shame on you for saying that.
Actually, it's more nuanced than that. The real question is about what you should do, not about what you have to do.
If you are in a swing state you should vote for one of them, assuming they are not equal in your eyes, because you are one of the few people with the power to influence the outcome. (Unless your pride in supporting a third-party candidate who will lose is more important than the difference between which of Hillary and Donald has the power to shape, or destroy, the world.)
If you are not in a swing state then you already voted, in your primary, and your vote for president doesn't matter any more. Research and vote on your local candidates (e.g. for congress or your town).
Real lawyers write in C++
"Trump would be a disaster for innovation," wrote 145 technology leaders in an open letter
In the UK, Michael Gove, an Oxford graduate, Times journalist, Cabinet minister and leading campaigner to leave the EU, said recently, âoepeople in this country have had enough of expertsâ.
His side of course won (though he personally hasn't, now being out of government) and that is the constituency Trump appeals to, one which no longer trusts rationality and expertise and is often, sad to say, receptive to any old rubbish as long as it's simple, appealing and delivered with conviction.
Who can blame them? They're told each time, "Experts say vote for me and everything will be great", only to find that decades on, they're no better off, their town has become slightly more crappy and their kids can't find jobs.
It's hard to say what Trump himself believes in; so far it looks like Trump and money.
Just wondering. To the extent I know their political orientation, they are all quite partisan Democrats.
One tech person who was interviewed on Leo Laporte's "Triangulation" podcast a few weeks ago had an interesting perspective. Basically, there's a lot of very bad stuff entrenched in Washington DC that needs to get broken. The candidate most likely to break stuff is Trump; hopefully, he'll break more stuff that needs breaking than stuff that needs to not be broken.
Me, I'm probably going to vote Libertarian; I won't vote for either of the D or R <obscene characterization redacted>."
because she is globalist war-hawk?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Depending on where you live, the farthest left candidate on the ballot is probably Gloria La Riva of the Party of Socialism and Liberation.
She advocates everyone should buy a personal email server.
Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.
Hillary will be more of the same, she's really very similar to Obama in policies, more crooked personally, but that's not going to matter.
Drumpf would be a disaster.
Compared to Drumpf, who has called for indiscriminate bombing?
She's practically a flower child.
Trump has enough negatives that you really don't have to use a stupid nickname that makes you sound like a wild-eyed crazy person.
I love how they can seriously write this with a straight face in the wake of Hillary's email scandal. I mean, I'm not arguing that Trump knows what he's doing either, but come the fuck on! Hillary's grasp of technology was so grossly negligent that, had she actually continued on in her cabinet position, she'd have been asked to resign, and yet they bring up technological incompetence as a talking point. This is just ludicrous and pathetic.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
Hillary isn't smart enough to figure out the consequences of her actions. She promoted "Arab Spring", which was a major step into the current middle-east mess.
An alternate explanation is that she doesn't give a damn about the consequences, so she doesn't bother thinking about them.
Trump, on the other hand, probably understands the that idea of "peace through strength" means that our enemies must know that we can and will turn them into dust if and only if they screw with us.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Trump never said that we should end all immigration. All he promised was to end the illegal migration into the USA by building the "wall" and banning the Muslims from entering the country. After winning the republican nomination, he backtracked on the second issue and said that only refugees from Syria and other trouble spots will not be allowed because we don't have an easy way to judge whether they have terrorist link. But now every leftie in the world (not just the US) as well as much of the news media has painted him as an isolationist racist who will halt all trade and end all exports and imports.
But in reality, Trump's trade plans are very simple. In the environment we already have, the government trade policies put the international corporations first, and the workers are just the scum to be exploited by them in every part of the world, be it USA, Mexico, or Asia. Trump wants to end this, and wants the trade to benefit everyone, and specially the American people, instead of just the faceless international corporations.
In the light of the Hillary Clinton's secretive and illegal record of putting her work mail on private servers, including top secret government communications, it's even doubly cynical to be accusing Trump of "reckless disregard for our legal and political institutions".
At least we know who's sponsoring Hillary.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Check the revenues per capita, and adjust for inflation. You'll find the Federal Government brings in over TWICE today what it did back in the 50s and 60s with that 90% tax bracket (today we cap out well below that, down below 40%). The reality is that the average tax load, per taxpayer and adjusted for inflation, has greatly increased - along with our debt.
Of course, most people believe we had a real surplus back in the 90s, when the fact is the US national debt (which is a cumulation of all deficits) has gone up every single year since 1957 when Ike was President - and we paid half the effective tax rate as well.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's very funny to see Hillary supporters claim Trump's the bad/corrupt guy who bought politicians.... including Hillary who he got to attend his wedding
...and then...
they praise Hillary, the politician who put herself on the store shelf and sold her services (and the public trust).
Two importand things to consider:
Hillary was a "public servant" who took an oath to serve the people who elected her and who paid her to look out for them. She clearly sold herself to every businessman and even every foreign scumbag dictators who would funnel millions of dollars into the Clinton Family slush fund while still collecting a public paycheck and then deleting tens of thousands of documents that might have shed a light on her activities. Let's be honest here: NOBODY risks federal jail time deleting e-mails that are only about yoga or a daughter's wedding dress.
Donald was a private citizen working to be successful within an increasingly corrupt political environment. Donald never took any oath to serve the people, never sought their power via their votes, and never sold them out to any foreign dicatators who prosecute women for getting raped and who murder gays for being gay. Now in 2016 Donald comes to the voters, having NEVER broken an oath to serve them, and offers himself as a hammer to smash the corrupt and entrenched in DC. Do you trust him? More or Less than Hillary? He's already very rich and they are both old to be running for that office. At his age this will likely be his last rodeo, so you people who think this is some get-rich scheme on his part (which has already cost him LOTS of business) have to answer just how much financial benefit you think this will be to him and just why you think he is worse than Hillary who has already PROVEN to enrich herself at the public trough.
You choose - but like the elderly Knight warned Indy: "choose wisely"
Can you only vote for one of two people in a U.S. election?
You pretty much described every politician ever. Some of them are just better at it than others.
Gone are those that actually stood for something. Probably because if you do like poor Bernie Sanders you get labeled something like "socialist" and can't get yourself elected either by your party or the people. People that stand for something will have people that oppose you. If you take the middle road, are vague, don't really say anything, or flip flop around, you have the potential to get both sides of the vote. The trick is not to get neither side of the vote. That is pretty much the modern political game in a nutshell.
The next crisis that everyone knows about and will eventually occur is another involving trillions of debt, student debt. The system has been, and continues to be abused, that value is only getting bigger, and the students graduating finding no jobs due to corporations lobbying for ever more powers to move jobs to cheaper places. At some point that cup will overflow, and we'll have another housing crisis type event.
... where you can't effectively fight emotive but nonsensical arguments with facts - witness the recent Brexit vote, all the Leave arguments were basically lies - but people still believed them, because they'd been convinced that they were "victims" (always a good populist tactic that). You can have all the facts and business and economic experts you like, all saying "Trump would be a disaster" (and I have no doubt that Trump with his I'm-so-smart egocentricity would be a disaster), but the people who are lured by simplistic nonsense like building walls and excluding Muslims won't listen to "elites". Calling him out as a fraudster (Trump University) or as an aggressively unreliable business partner (look for any number of interview on Youtube with poor guys that won a contract to design or carpet or wire up one of his property ventures and got screwed badly) probably has broader relevance, because there are a lot of small business owners and people who have been ripped off out there that might relate better.
In Soviet Russia, all our base are belong to YOU!
" Trump would be a disaster for innovation," wrote 145 technology leaders....Some of the leaders are from tech giants like Google, Facebook and Apple...
How ironic that the worlds largest tech giants are trying to label a single man as being a "disaster for innovation", when it is rather obvious that patent hoarding by tech giants will utterly destroy innovation.
Tends to be a bitch to even innovate when patent monopolies and their legal armies are poised to shut your ass down in order to exact the control they want, and morph the tech world to their wants and needs.
And bunchteen other green projects? Not to mention how much money was blown on a crappy healthcare.gov website to a Canadian company. These 145 guys need to wake up and smell what they're shoveling.
I'm sure they said that about Hitler... oh wait, did I just Godwin this thread? But voting for someone who swaggers, is obviously racist, will probably declare Marshall Law to keep himself in power, and will nuke anyone who sends him an offensive tweet is *not* a good idea unless you are hoping for a world war and to become the most hated country on Earth.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
In case anyone doesn't know why DarkVader is using Drumpf, Donald Drumpf's last name was legally changed to Trump many years ago.
Most likely, DarkVader is using it because Trump had a giant hissy fit over John Stewart's last name actually being Leibowitz, presumably after John Stewart said something less than complimentary about Trump. Trump accusing John Stewart of being an anti-Semitic coward is hilariously stupid.
But yeah, it's unnecessary and a bit childish, just like Trump.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If Trump is elected, I think lots of us will then hate him for what he does. I'm already not at all fond of what he's done as a private person.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
While you might be inordinately lucky to have a very good sample, the rest of us aren't. That and not all of us can move from Ohio.
Not sure what area you're generally speaking, but things have been worse than you expect.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
N/T
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Of course, those individuals found themselves usually on the wrong end of US owned and operated military hardware.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Your hubris precedes you. It's gone on long enough to affect anyone (of any skill) with a US/1st World country citizenship.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That's her platform.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Trump would be a disaster...possibly. What about "Facebook Makes Little Progress in Race and Gender Diversity"? This PC bullshit is why people are flocking to Trump in the first place.
I told my kids a long time ago that a joke or story doesn't get funnier the more times you tell it.
love is just extroverted narcissism
When someone stands in her way, or has become politically useless, bad things happen to that person. Minimally, that results in intimidation while the other end is to be suicided or murdered.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.