Slashdot Mirror
'Increasingly, People in Silicon Valley Are Losing Touch With Reality' (500ish.com)
Longtime commentator MG Siegler writes: You can see it in the tweets. You can hear it at tech conferences. Hell, you can hear it at most cafes in San Francisco on any given day. People -- really smart people -- saying some of the most vacuous things. Words that if they were able to take a step outside of their own heads and hear, they'd be embarrassed by. Or, at least, these are stances, thoughts, and ideas that these people should be embarrassed by. But they're clearly not because they keep saying them. This isn't only about Facebook -- far from it. That's just the most high profile and timely example of a company suffering from some of this. And in that case, it's really more in their responses to the Cambridge Analytica situation, rather than the situation itself (which is another matter, though undoubtedly related). They don't know the right things to say because they don't know what to say, period. Because they've slipped out of touch.
But again, I feel like this is increasingly everywhere I look around tech. It's an industry filled with some of the most brilliant people in the world, which makes it all the more disappointing. I won't name names but also because I don't have to. I'd wager everyone reading this will have clear and obvious examples of what I'm talking about in their own circles -- even if only in their own virtual circles. This is everywhere. I don't know the cause of this. Perhaps we can blame part of it on Trump, even if only indirectly (a man who has gotten ahead in life by saying asinine things). If I had to guess, I'd say the root is an increasing sense of entitlement as the tech industry has grown in stature to become the most important from a fiscal perspective and arguably from a cultural perspective as well.
But again, I feel like this is increasingly everywhere I look around tech. It's an industry filled with some of the most brilliant people in the world, which makes it all the more disappointing. I won't name names but also because I don't have to. I'd wager everyone reading this will have clear and obvious examples of what I'm talking about in their own circles -- even if only in their own virtual circles. This is everywhere. I don't know the cause of this. Perhaps we can blame part of it on Trump, even if only indirectly (a man who has gotten ahead in life by saying asinine things). If I had to guess, I'd say the root is an increasing sense of entitlement as the tech industry has grown in stature to become the most important from a fiscal perspective and arguably from a cultural perspective as well.
That perhaps the real problem is that YOU are measuring reality differently than they are.
They're measuring reality with the relentless mathematics of financial analysis.
Your metric may simply be different.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I guess the point here is that people cannot have their own opinions, or opinions that are different from yours?
Agreed. Perhaps the real problem is that we are talking about millennials, and in the valley they are all entitled, vapid, egoistic, victimistic, not actually all that intelligent, drug-addled and privileged clods with the emotional maturity of something growing in a petri dish. The post actually serves of a fantastic demonstration of what is wrong, just not for the intended reasons. Self-awareness, much?
He never gave a single example of one of these thoughts the Silicon Valley folks have that are out of touch.
I would agree on many things, they are, but in an article like this, I would expect some specific items they are out of touch with.....
He mentions Facebook and Cambridge....but what about that does he thing they are out of touch on?
And just automatically jumping in with a Trump bash....that just derails any other points he was trying to make.
Poorly written article, with assumptions that everyone things like he does.....without listing out what he thinks.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I read this totally differently... I'm decidedly NOT in Silicon Valley and from my perspective this author is possibly on to something, but totally struck out trying to dance around the bush identifying it.
The problem with Social media in general is the propensity of people to identify dangerous ideas while wearing political glasses. This makes some feel, for instance, supporting the 2nd amendment is somehow akin to advocating the killing of innocent people in mass shootings. As such, then it justifies the elimination of that kind of message from the platform. The problem is the projection of political interpretations and the use of strong and angry rhetoric into the management of the platform. Such things need to stop and platforms need to not bow to social pressure born of the news cycle in their editorial decisions.
Where I fully understand the need for moderation of social media platforms and the social necessity of platform operators to keep things under control by putting limits in place and enforcing them, I think that platform operators need to CLEARLY define what sorts of things they will and will not allow then follow the rules they put forth strictly. Where I leave such editorial decisions up to the site owners, I would hope that operators can divorce themselves from political and social perspectives which are truly intolerant of alternate views and fall on the side of allowing folks to be offended by ideas they don't like.
There are examples of successful moderation techniques to be gleaned from USENET of the past (or even the present). I suggest we take a look at how USENET evolved, look at what worked, what didn't and apply the lessons we learned back then. Strong moderation policies, clearly written, evenly and strictly enforced quickly worked best in my view. Social platforms of today would do well to learn from these successful efforts.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
When they showed videos on the news of employees evacuating YouTube I have to say I was shocked and immediately understood how fucked up Silicon Valley is. The employees are not even close to representative of the people of the Bay Area nor of people anywhere. To say that it's a bubble is an understatement.
Spot on! The author of the article needs to realize he is in the same bubble.
After reading the article, the author is in the bubble, sure. But unlike the people they are ranting agains, they don't appear to be actually intelligent. That article was content, fact and even anecdote free. Basically, "here's my opinion, but I'm above examples that demonstrate it."
A new low even for slashdot.
I don't know, but it works for me.
My favourite example of how no-one can agree what an SJW is would be this clip from Star Trek The Next Generation: https://youtu.be/Xn5-iG6FX58
It's from the episode "The Drumhead", in which an investigator comes to uncover a conspiracy on the Enterprise. She ends up turning it into a witch hunt, reminiscent of the McCarthy era. Picard shuts her down with a brilliant speech.
The title of the video is "Triggered SJW Attacks Picard, Instantly Regrets It". The person who posted it seems to think that the investigator is the SJW, but many of the comments think it is Picard. The investigator cares little for social justice, she just wants to root out enemies of the Federation. Picard wants to protect the mixed-race guy she picks on, and on the whole his character is known for wrestling with moral issues and having a strong commitment to justice.
So is an SJW just someone who annoys you, or an authoritarian, or someone acting unreasonably, or is there some set of qualities that defines them? And if the latter, how come it's nor Picard, a guy who literally fights for social justice at times?
The phrase is completely meaningless, but people think they know what it means so you can use it and expect your audience to nod along regardless of whether they actually agree with you or not.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
... because we already knew about it and we've fixed it.
WE VOTED TRUMP INTO THE WHITE (GLASS) HOUSE
Yes, we targeted Trump and his entire orbit including those guilty of systemic sexual harassment, white nationalism, fraud, blackmail, money laundering, electioneering and, yes, even the people who wouldn't do anything sensible to at least try to reduce injuries and deaths by way of personal handguns and rifles.
We knew that Trump, as a president, would be under the microscope.
The Access Hollywood tape had been around awhile and we wanted that out there.
During the campaign, sure enough, the KKK people took off their hoods! Bonus. Notice that fire is tamped down now, but it's too late. Our LEOs have a year of video and photographic evidence that we have scanned through facial recognition and all your base are belong to us.
Our work has been fruitful.
Think of the many politicians that have met their political demise via exposure of their sexual indiscretions.
Look at Trump's lawyer, Cohen, who is in deep shit.
Look at Hannity. We wanted him and Bill O'Reilly and. we calculated to bring down Fox News and flat-line its bias and influence as fake news. That's a work in progress.
Appreciate that all the work done by lawyers and acquaintances of Trump, intended to shield him from negative press during the campaign, have a dollar value and are categorized as campaign contributions.
In some cases where individuals said they did shit for Trump on their own, the value of the work exceeds the limit of private campaign donation limits.
Cohen created companies in Delaware as a dodge in order to hide the transactions, but the companies did not claim the payout as campaign contribution. That's money laundering and other stuff.
==
Intelligent, reasonable, people have long asked for implementation of rational firearm regulation.
We were not out to get the guns.
Because more traditional approaches failed to move the needle, (and for other obvious reasons) we decided to pass on Hillary Clinton in favour of Trump.
Our strategy has worked in that gun sales are at record lows and some gun manufacturers are having fire sales because the batshit crazy #2A assholes were gearing up for a Hillary win and the manufacturers over-produced, and have a shit-load of inventory.
Gun maker stocks are down and some are even filing for bankruptcy.
SO, WE DIDN'T TAKE THE GUNS --WE FIXED IT WHERE FEW PEOPLE ARE BUYING THEM
OK, You may applaud now, and thank you for not cheering and yelling during this presentation.
Tip jar's on the piano, try the fish.
.
.
© 2018 CaptainDork
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.