Helianthus

7 ms·

1.
by Helianthus 13y ago
Value cannot be adequately quantified. At its best, money is an inadequate substitute for such a quantification that is often useful; at its worst, the failure to be mindful of that inadequacy exacerbates its inaccuracy.
2.
by Helianthus 13y ago
I don't expect different, but pointing out that the technology sector is no less rotten than the financial sector is a pastime of mine.
3.
by Helianthus 13y ago
Oh, I can't resist. >You disdain the love of wanting money? At what point has my absolute contempt for "loving money and wanting more of it" been unclear to you? Because you really should have clued in around when I said
4.
by Helianthus 13y ago
In other words, you don't want money, but you are forced to deal with it.
5.
by Helianthus 13y ago
I'm not specifying an amount or a correctness, and I do not disagree that there is a line between means and end. I'm saying that HN's attention span is dominated by dollar signs.
6.
by Helianthus 13y ago
>And yes, when you call something "vulgar and utterly clueless", you're definitely making moral judgments. I know! My point is merely that I wasn't lecturing. >You have enough consideration to feel like posting a
7.
by Helianthus 13y ago
>please stop lecturing people with cheap and meaningless moral judgments. Ha. I'm not lecturing; I simply have no respect or consideration for your position. You are not being lectured: you are encountering an attitude with which y
8.
by Helianthus 13y ago
This seems to me to be an excellent example of the kind of poor thinking money promotes; do prove me wrong. >If a lot of smart people thought WhatsApp was worth 14B Why are they smart? Because they have billions of dollars? Because Wha
9.
by Helianthus 13y ago
There's paying the bills, and there's lust for percentages of 16 billion dollars.
10.
by Helianthus 13y ago
Forgive me if I'm contemptuous of those whose subjective goal is the acquisition of money.
11.
by Helianthus 13y ago
>Is it really vulgar to desire money and take it as indicator of success Yes? It is not only vulgar, it is utterly clueless.
12.
by Helianthus 13y ago
This article is from March 2012. It has been posted twice before to HN to little impact. http://hn.algolia.com/#!/story/forever/prefix/0/Whatsapp%20s... (Correction: the presentation is from 2012;
13.
by Helianthus 13y ago
If you want evidence that HN has a fetish for money, it's that the technical details of Whatsapp's success are only closely inspected now that gratuitous cash has been thrown around. You may view this comment as too cynical for th
14.
by Helianthus 13y ago
It seems to me this doesn't actually contradict parent; it almost just rephrases quanticle succinctly. (To the extent that I'm actually unsure of your intent.)
15.
by Helianthus 13y ago
What's amusing is that the correct title of the piece (no plural on 'overflow') is more ambiguous. I wonder which way the HN title mods will rule.
16.
by Helianthus 13y ago
Why are you asking me? Goodnight.
17.
by Helianthus 13y ago
I never said I was proud that I could tell your comment was self-aggrandizing. I only said it was obvious.
18.
by Helianthus 13y ago
Heh. Well, you've made it pretty easy for me. >>Under the circumstances, it's time for you to get over yourself. The OP's post, and my reply, are perfectly symmetrical -- one demands the other. Perfect. Now for an act
19.
by Helianthus 13y ago
Oh, get over yourselves, both of you. He's just starting a conversation, and while I wouldn't advocate handing out participation ribbons, you're just trashing someone that had a thought and expressed it--you and gfodor are bu
20.
by Helianthus 13y ago
There's trying to cross trends for other people (your example) and trying to cross trends in order to find your own niche within expectations. Witness all of the not-quite-fits in the examples the author found. I think you'd find
21.
by Helianthus 13y ago
>Engagement on the content and not the process would go a long way at this moment. In all honesty this is a terrible and frightening attitude for you to express. It validates that: * You have contempt for the process. * You demand others
22.
by Helianthus 13y ago
They're commenting in this topic, and they seem clueless as to why anyone would object at all.
23.
by Helianthus 13y ago
>You haven't seen this for what it truly is Just... don't bother with me. I've been watching this since the first hype and you aren't anywhere near the first breathless comment I've read.
24.
by Helianthus 13y ago
>Don't waste your time and everyone else's with worthless campaigns such as this. I mean, you can do both .
25.
by Helianthus 13y ago
What a waste of time. I haven't given too much weight to criticism of Bitcoin's use of computing resources--there's enough low-hanging fruit--but this is actually somehow reprehensible.
26.
by Helianthus 13y ago
I think the relevant distinction here is that the 'crooks' we're discussing aren't likely to be held legally accountable for their activities.
27.
by Helianthus 13y ago
We haven't vanished. We just don't care anymore--at least, not enough to rehash the same old tired arguments. I still monitor Bitcoin news. Nothing surprising. Bitcoin is still a greedy rotten fruit, and only time will prove an
28.
by Helianthus 13y ago
hahaha this was hilarious even before I saw the 15 or so additional contradictory suggestions below this thread.
29.
by Helianthus 13y ago
Maybe. That was the style of the day, and Atwood's blog can easily be read sequentially (such that the self-references aren't necessarily self-promotion so much as they are helpful reminders of previous concepts). At least, I spe
30.
by Helianthus 13y ago
[ insert obligatory thatthatis's recursive-reference-escape coining reference here ]

More ›