Arguably, it's better that these people are in private industry than in government, which might be considered a feature of the system. Some have argued that civilization is mostly concerned with the management of sociopaths: this guy seems fucking horrible, but at least his ambition took him here, instead of being the "Duke of Feeding People and Medicine" or something where his shittyness would kill people.

I feel kind of gross writing that, for the record, but think it's true.

1) While he is shitty that does not make him incompetent, I would dare to say that if the incentives were right, assholes might even be a great in government and do an awesome job as 2) The fact that assholes are more obvious in the private sector does not preclude them from existing in the state sector. They might just be more hidden.

They belong in prison, not in industry.

Oh absolutely, but making the steps they take to get there as non-genocidal as possible is also very important.

There's video of him striking his SO 117 times, hopefully he goes to prison and stays there.

Summed up here in the integrity rant by Bryan Cantrill - many companies don't have it (or care): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15268045 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNfAAQUQ_54#t=042m39s)

>In the short run, they win.

In the current world of high (fake?) valuations, make money fast and now - this strategy wins so it is considered "OK", overlooked or the norm. The fact that it is revealed to be happening in SV is only IMO b/c the industry is so hot now. All eyes on on it. Its also the only real investment/booming industry left in America. I'm sure we saw a lot of this in the past too (80s wall street etc) :(

In the long run, their being tolerated by VCs (and other capitalists) tends to push the liability onto public markets via acquisitions and IPOs, which you could argue makes it Not Their Problem, but that should eventually cause markets to develop a wariness or distaste for those VCs' companies, which is a long-term liability. So I can understand why the money flows toward them, but it can create complex, long-running problems.

I'd like to live in a world where we follow the No Assholes rule a little more strictly.

Maybe because this behaviour doesn't actually matter?

Imagine a scenario where your child is sick and will likely die. There's a handful of doctors in the world capable of treating him/her, the best one frequently says the "n-word", and the rest are 50% worse. Which one will you pick?

Most rational people would pick the one that's better on the metric that matters. The "n-word"-speaking one probably wouldn't get picked to do PR, but if he's a better surgeon, he's a better surgeon.

That's also how investors act. Someone is "better" if they make more money, all things considered.

Downvoted because of the straw man comparison of a dying child to venture investments.

Your comment sounds like some HN parody.

since when is reasoning by analogy a strawman?

A situation of life and death is not analogical to multiplying already enormous wealth.

People that intentionally damage the society on a day job and beat their partners in the evening are not analogical to a politically incorrect doctor.

Except in this scenario the behavior of the doctor infuriates the other surgeons in the room degrading success rates down to 30%.