It's not like he took $100M from an orphanage or something.

Most recently, I got a "legitimate" (doxxed, "real") job offer via HN, got hired and scammed, wasted hours of my time. Crypto is scamsville.

* Locked out of traditional financial industry, more people of color are turning to cryptocurrency [0]

* Why the crypto crash hit black Americans hard [1]

[0] https://archive.is/slVPj

[1] https://archive.is/KhbuI

On the other hand blockchain and Internet ads and seemingly little else routinely get the 1-bit treatment on HN all the time: GP is going grey at the time of writing for saying roughly that crypto hurts orphans.

I don’t understand this, and since my theories about why tend to be pretty polarizing I’ll leave it at: I’m against 1-bit thinking on HN. I’m guilty of it sometimes, but I try not to be.

Edit: Misread GP with apologies. I think the larger point stands.

Are people angry at coinbase (and generally crypto exchanges) because they believe that exchanges allow vast amounts of people to speculate on the price of crypto and treat it as an investment vehicle when it was supposed to be a currency? And therefore nobody working for coinbase is capable of creating value.

Or are people angry at crypto overall because it's a wasteful cesspool and so because this guy took a product role in the crypto industry he's not capable of creating any value whatsoever so fuck him and fuck everyone that paid him?

Or are people angry with this guy because he's a bad or underwhelming product leader and the salary does not reflect the value he did bring to coinbase (perhaps you hold coinbase shares)? And therefore you feel he was somehow dishonest about his value and conned coinbase for millions and this reflects poorly on the startup/tech/vc industry?

Also, let’s be honest here. It’s stock valuation. That’s basically good vibes and rich VC money. It’s not like the money came from real people.

I read that comment as sarcastic. I don't think your parent comment is praising him

1. It was a box on the sidewalk with a locked swing-out door facing forward.

2. You put coins into the machine and the door unlocks.

3. Inside are all the newspapers. You put your hand in and take only one.

4. You close the door and it locks.

The first thing my relatives asked after seeing this was "why do you only take one?"

If you model society as a Nash equilibrium, the impulse to veer towards social betrayal is present in all people and societies. It's an obvious instinct and the fact that people are so open about indulging it only indicates that we're returning to the historic mean for humans, that the trust required to stay in mutual cooperation.

I don't know where you emigrated to, but unless it's Saudi Arabia or Singapore, I would doubt your observation. Americans and Euros have a tendency to view everyone else as Rousseau's "noble savage", i.e. a romanticized alien.

AFAICT, peoples' moral leanings seem pretty consistent over history. (I could be wrong; I'm haven't studied that much history.)

In an environment like the USA (where many of the world's smartest tend to flock and extreme wealth is relatively achievable), being conniving is rarer than being smart, so that's what people value.

I don't think being conniving is better than being smart, just sharing an observation.

Do you disagree with the premise?

It's not what I value, it's an observation of what others value. I know people couch their own opinions in the views of others a lot, but nowhere did I express personal feelings.

It was just trying to dig one layer deeper to contextualize the situation OP was talking about (Americans valorizing confidence games).

- The world of Competition: Domination by action until one reaches a point of coldness that one loses oneself creating a "dark night of the soul" bringing change

- The world of Love: All efforts are aligned to create well being by avoiding harm of oneself and others.

If you are in the world of Competition, you will see the world in terms of black and white, gain and loss. Even my statement will be seen as a fool's position. One has to make a living in the world, even at the expense of others.

If you are in the world of Love, you will see the service you provide to others is an asset and you don't have to think about "Making it in the world", harming others at you own benefit because the world provides for you exactly what you need and you some how escape all of the consequences of others you have chosen the path of competition.

Which ever side you choose, will be the world you create for yourself and others. Right now the world of competition dominates, but it won't always be that way. Eventually we will all come-around, to love :D

Natural laws are neither cruel or kind. The are absolutely just. The cruelty of [competition] is a passing phase of evolution. - James Allen "The Competitive Laws & The Law Of Love"

I believe these criticisms are true of essentially everywhere on earth. How much of Germany was French for a time or a vassal state of this one lord or another? Africa, the continent that invented slavery still enslaves people to this day. The Native Americans themselves faught with one another for land and treasure. Going back far enough, we cro magnons stole neanderthal land.

The United States didn't pop into existence in 1776 bringing with it some sort absolute barbarity that previously never existed, it's the other way around, the world was pretty backward and barbaric until the Americans got around to fixing it.

I personally find the mental model that includes the dynamics of dominance and subjugation along with the responses of solidarity and resistance extremely helpful in understanding the world as a whole. Why are things a certain way etc? Because of X.

It is a physics, and is more completely predictive and reliable than a mental model that sees only oppression and anxiety (as many people are limited to) or one that sees only ambition and advantage (as many peoples' blinders dictate).

FWIW the parent you are replying to was clearly jesting with some sarcasm and not actually praising it in the way you seem to think.

EDIT: apparently not, according to the other replies by that parent. But looks like several of us read sarcasm into the comment.

There are 100s of millions of people in the US.

This is an issue from the top to the bottom.

We romanticize it when it's punching up (like at a crypto company that's probably been responsible for bankrupting a whole lot of suckers) but accepting it as a virtue also lets all those terrible bosses bask in the glory of how "keen" they're being by shaving off a bit extra for the retirement fund but punching down.

if not intended as sarcastic, it works as sarcasm quite well!

I assumed the poster was being ironic.