Hackathon Accidentally Picks Perfect Metaphor for Its Own Awfulness(jwz.org)
jwz.org
Hackathon Accidentally Picks Perfect Metaphor for Its Own Awfulness
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2014/07/hackathon-accidentally-picks-perfect-metaphor-for-its-own-awfulness/
5 comments
This is solely a link to http://valleywag.gawker.com/hackathon-accidentally-picks-per... , which is from a banned domain on HN. (the article itself has good points)
Why is Gawker banned here? Are other properties of theirs banned as well, such as Gizmodo? I've tried in the past to submit a couple of Gizmodo articles with no success. I know that they are generally not written in a way that would be welcome here, but every once in a while they have some great original writing that I think is interesting.
gawker.com is banned because it's gossipy, which means that the subdomain valleywag.gawker.com is also banned.
I believe Gizmodo and other Gawker properties are not banned. (there was a Gizmodo submission 7 minutes ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8043765)
I believe Gizmodo and other Gawker properties are not banned. (there was a Gizmodo submission 7 minutes ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8043765)
Ah, fair enough--didn't think to link the original.
JWZ is a brand I can trust. :)
JWZ is a brand I can trust. :)
I think the link to the original is sufficient alas http://greylocku.com/hackfest/
Reminds me of Moxie Marlinspike's "The Money Machine": http://thoughtcrime.org/stories/money-machine/
Loved that post.
As a European there seems to me that there is an anti-meritocracy trend in America right now. Could anyone explain if and why this is so?
That is a big, huge question and issue to try to tackle in a comment.
From my perspective, it's not so much that there is an anti-meritocracy trend in America, as that America has classically had a popular culture of "if you work hard, you will succeed" that has been taken to the extreme (Horatio Alger, as an example).
However, rising income inequality, a weak job market for certain classes of individuals, poor employment prospects for college grads and the like have created a situation where there is increasing cynicism that in reality working hard will not let you get ahead.
Couple that with a vocal set of extremely wealthy individuals saying stupid things and getting lots of press for it, and you start to create a growing perception that there's a "landed elite" that disdains the shrinking middle class.
So - in this particular case, it's not that anyone is angry that there's a hackathon - it's the perception of extremely wealthy professional investors challenging undercapitalized individuals to write code, with a prize of literally jumping around in a booth for cash.
I don't think America is anti-meritocracy, but to paraphrase John Oliver from his show, many Americans are thinking it's more of a rigged game, and not in their favor.
From my perspective, it's not so much that there is an anti-meritocracy trend in America, as that America has classically had a popular culture of "if you work hard, you will succeed" that has been taken to the extreme (Horatio Alger, as an example).
However, rising income inequality, a weak job market for certain classes of individuals, poor employment prospects for college grads and the like have created a situation where there is increasing cynicism that in reality working hard will not let you get ahead.
Couple that with a vocal set of extremely wealthy individuals saying stupid things and getting lots of press for it, and you start to create a growing perception that there's a "landed elite" that disdains the shrinking middle class.
So - in this particular case, it's not that anyone is angry that there's a hackathon - it's the perception of extremely wealthy professional investors challenging undercapitalized individuals to write code, with a prize of literally jumping around in a booth for cash.
I don't think America is anti-meritocracy, but to paraphrase John Oliver from his show, many Americans are thinking it's more of a rigged game, and not in their favor.
As an American, I am equally puzzled.
We've had decades of sociopolitical groups pushing "social equality & justice", grossly summarized as eliminating any reason one person should have something while another should not. Much of it is valid (overcoming abject discrimination based on race, disability, gender, etc) but as those problems are solved, smaller issues are magnified into the same intensity & rhetoric, asymptotically approaching a demand for absolute equality in all things. As such, this manifests as a "war on meritocracy", whereby nobody should have "more" than anyone else for any reason whatsoever. I'd theorize that it's a combination of good intentions gone wrong, leaders having to "continue the fight" lest they work themselves out of a job thru success, ad-driven culture taught to want everything for nothing, frustration of efforts not reaping tacitly promised rewards, and straight-up greed.
Odd, as it wasn't long ago that hard work was the dominant ethos. Now it's an awful lot of "get mine" by making up excuses to take someone else's.
[downvotes commence]
We've had decades of sociopolitical groups pushing "social equality & justice", grossly summarized as eliminating any reason one person should have something while another should not. Much of it is valid (overcoming abject discrimination based on race, disability, gender, etc) but as those problems are solved, smaller issues are magnified into the same intensity & rhetoric, asymptotically approaching a demand for absolute equality in all things. As such, this manifests as a "war on meritocracy", whereby nobody should have "more" than anyone else for any reason whatsoever. I'd theorize that it's a combination of good intentions gone wrong, leaders having to "continue the fight" lest they work themselves out of a job thru success, ad-driven culture taught to want everything for nothing, frustration of efforts not reaping tacitly promised rewards, and straight-up greed.
Odd, as it wasn't long ago that hard work was the dominant ethos. Now it's an awful lot of "get mine" by making up excuses to take someone else's.
[downvotes commence]
I'm an American too; I don't see this happening. Straw Man.
A very large fraction of my paycheck is confiscated & "redistributed". It's happening.
Most likely it would've been a larger fraction at almost any point in the last 60 years.
Whether you like it or not, you derive innumerable tangible benefits from living in American society, in no small part because generations before you paid for it. You're probably white, male, hetero, relatively young, and relatively healthy, and none of the advantages which accrued to you because of that are due to your life choices. Arguably, you have the sense of entitlement exactly backwards.
Whether you like it or not, you derive innumerable tangible benefits from living in American society, in no small part because generations before you paid for it. You're probably white, male, hetero, relatively young, and relatively healthy, and none of the advantages which accrued to you because of that are due to your life choices. Arguably, you have the sense of entitlement exactly backwards.
In my experience, most of those complaining the loudest are upset that others have more than they do, not that they have more than others do. It's really more of a me-ritocracy.
This summary of social equality & justice is not something anyone should take seriously. It is a very one-sided, reductive description of the issue. If nothing else, this comment is a good example of the siege mentality on display in folk of a conservative bent: long on cynical rhetoric about "those people" and politicians while short on nuance or compassion for fellow human beings.
Long story short, some people question the idea that people who are successful deserve what they have merely because they have it, and that those who do are unsuccessful deserve to be poor because, in a word, they're meritless. Furthermore, some people want society at large to acknowledge the role chance and circumstance play in whether or not someone is successful.
Your last complaint is so old it's a cliche.
Long story short, some people question the idea that people who are successful deserve what they have merely because they have it, and that those who do are unsuccessful deserve to be poor because, in a word, they're meritless. Furthermore, some people want society at large to acknowledge the role chance and circumstance play in whether or not someone is successful.
Your last complaint is so old it's a cliche.
[facepalm] This retort about social equality & justice is not something anyone should take seriously. It is a very one-sided, reductive rebuttal of the issue. If nothing else, this comment is a good example of the projection mentality on display in folk of a "progressive" bent: long on cynical rhetoric about "those people" while short on understanding the underlying differences in axioms (ex.: "compassion for fellow human beings" does not involve gov't confiscation of one's income for redistribution to those able-bodied who complain sufficiently).
Long story short, some people question the idea that people who are successful deserve what they have because others agreed to give them it, and that those who are unsuccessful deserve to be poor because, in a word, they didn't earn what they don't have. Furthermore, some people want society at large to acknowledge that chance and circumstance are unfair and nobody's "fault", and the rewards of success should not be forcibly redistributed just because chance favored a ready mind.
Your post is so common it's a cliche.
We'd get somewhere in this discussion if we could discuss differences in underlying axioms, rather than hurtling insults at those with diverse views.
Long story short, some people question the idea that people who are successful deserve what they have because others agreed to give them it, and that those who are unsuccessful deserve to be poor because, in a word, they didn't earn what they don't have. Furthermore, some people want society at large to acknowledge that chance and circumstance are unfair and nobody's "fault", and the rewards of success should not be forcibly redistributed just because chance favored a ready mind.
Your post is so common it's a cliche.
We'd get somewhere in this discussion if we could discuss differences in underlying axioms, rather than hurtling insults at those with diverse views.
You'd have to explain a bit more on what you've seen that leads you to that conclusion.
I think the trend is really only displayed by VCs--consider what is getting funded and talked about (social apps, me-too secret messaging, analytics platforms) and what isn't (medical software for informatics and analytics, robotics, clean energy).
Additionally, there is a lot of double-speak being thrown around by people that should, theoretically, "know better". Andreessen is a smart guy (and slung actual code back at Netscape), for example, but a lot of what he says recently is so clearly pandering to his own business interests that it's hard to respect him for his technical ability.
In short, America is as much of a meritocracy as it has ever been--which is cold comfort for students of history.
I think the trend is really only displayed by VCs--consider what is getting funded and talked about (social apps, me-too secret messaging, analytics platforms) and what isn't (medical software for informatics and analytics, robotics, clean energy).
Additionally, there is a lot of double-speak being thrown around by people that should, theoretically, "know better". Andreessen is a smart guy (and slung actual code back at Netscape), for example, but a lot of what he says recently is so clearly pandering to his own business interests that it's hard to respect him for his technical ability.
In short, America is as much of a meritocracy as it has ever been--which is cold comfort for students of history.
It's the idea that meritocracy in America is a sham, and a self-congratulatory idea in any case. It starts from the premise that if you have succeeded, you deserve to have succeeded without taking into account circumstances that led to your success (e.g. parents' wealth).
Contrariwise people are sick of being told they're "meritless" because of circumstances beyond their control-- the deck is stacked against you if you happen to fall into one of many less-than-fortunate categories.
Contrariwise people are sick of being told they're "meritless" because of circumstances beyond their control-- the deck is stacked against you if you happen to fall into one of many less-than-fortunate categories.
"Meritocracy" is often the idealized thing we like to call the American economy, but it is far from that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno
Another interesting perspective over meritocracy, definitely a good read/watch: http://alaindebotton.com/status/
I'm pretty sure that's not an accident.
[deleted]